Rakesh @ Golu vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 19114 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 10795/2021

Rakesh @ Golu S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Battu Kalan, Tehsil Bhattu, Dist. Fatehabad (Haryana). (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh).

                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. S.D. Goswami
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Arun Kumar, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

15/12/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

police has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under Section 395 IPC and the trial court has also

framed charges against him for the said offence, but from the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that the offence

punishable under Section 395 IPC is not made out against the

petitioner as the prosecution witnesses, in their statements, have

specifically stated that only four persons were involved in the

commission of crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

for the purpose of proving the charge under Section 395 IPC, at

least, five or more persons are required to be involved in the

commission of crime. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in

judicial custody since 30.07.2016, as such, he is behind the bars

from more than five years and looking to the facts and

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-10795/2021]

circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged

on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application and submitted that from the

statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Shyam Lal

(PW-1) and Darshna W/o Shyam Lal (PW-3), it is clear that more

than five persons were involved in the commission of crime. It is

also submitted that out of ten prosecution witnesses, nine have

already been examined and in such circumstances, the petitioner

is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties; perused the

material available on record; after going through the evidence of

prosecution witnesses namely Shyam Lal (PW-1) and Darshna W/o

Shyam Lal (PW-3) and also taking into consideration the fact that

out of ten prosecution witnesses, nine have already been

examined by the trial court, I am not inclined to grant bail to the

petitioner.

Hence, this fourth bail application is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

4-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)