Akshay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2762 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10428/2020

Akshay Kumar S/o Sh. Rajendra Jakhar @ Raju, Aged 37 Years, R/o Ladhuwala, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.). (In Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary Sr. Adv. Assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiar Khan, PP Mr. S.S. Ladrecha for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order 02/02/2021

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in

connection with C.R. case No.12/2018, Police Station Lalgarh

Jattan, District Sri Ganganagar, registered for the offence under

Sections 341, 323, 323/34, 302, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as

well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material

available on record.

As per learned counsel for the petitioner, statement of PW-6

Balram i.e. father of deceased and PW-7 Bhupendra Kumar have

been recorded before the trial Court; in the statements of both

these witnesses, allegations against the petitioner are similar to

the co-accused Rajendra Jakhad @ Raju and Bhupendra. Even as

per statement of both the above witnesses, the extra judicial

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-10428/2020]

confession was made by co-accused Rajendra Jakhad @ Raju, who

has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

vide order dated 17.10.2019 (SBCRLMB No.11480/2019). Apart

from that, co-accused Bhupendra Kumar has also been granted

benefit of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 03.09.2020 (SBCRLMB No. 2710/2020). Learned counsel for

the petitioner further stated that there was love affair between the

deceased Sushil and daughter of Rajendra; and the trial will take

time.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that as per

prosecution story, the incident took place due to love affair

between Sunil and daughter of Rajendra; petitioner has wrongly

been implicated in this case; alternatively, he argued that

allegations against all the three accused are similar and other two

co-accused has already been granted benefit of bail by a co-

ordinate Bench of this Court. With these submissions, learned

counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be

granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the

complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application

of the accused-petitioner and stated that Rakesh Kumar is the

person, who first heard about the assault and he has informed

Rajendra Jakhad @ Raju and Bhupendra Kumar and statement of

Rakesh Kumar is yet to be recorded by the trial Court, therefore,

until his statement, benefit of bail may not be granted to the

accused-petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

complainant further urges that Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has

held in the case of "Chander Alias Chandra Vs State of U.P.

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-10428/2020]

reported in 1998 CriLJ 2374", that benefit of bail cannot be

granted on the sole ground that other co-accused has granted

benefit of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted

the copies of documents which are related to the conduct of

accused-petitioner that one mobile has also been recovered from

the custody of the accused-petitioner in concerned Jail and lastly

urges that benefit of bail may not be granted.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

particularly looking to the facts it reveals that as per statement

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Rakesh Kumar was not the

eye witness of the incident. On the contrary, Balram and

Bhupendra Kumar were the eye witnesses of the occurrence and

statements of both these witnesses have been recorded before the

trial Court. As per statements of PW-6 Balram and PW-7

Bhupendra Kumar, allegations against the accused-petitioner are

similar to other co-accused Bhupendra and Rajendra Jakhad, who

have already been granted benefit of bail by a co-ordinate Bench

of this Court.

It is pertinent to mention here that as per judgment cited by

learned counsel for the complainant, as referred above, it is clear

that in that case bail was granted only on the ground that benefit

of bail has been granted in favour of other co-accused and later as

held by this Court, that only on the basis of granting bail to the

co-accused, benefit of bail to the accused cannot be granted. This

Court fully agree with the view taken by Hon'ble the Allahabad

High Court but the case in hand, this is not the sole ground raised

by learned counsel for the petitioner. Apart from this argument,

learned counsel urges that as per the statements of PW-6 and

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-10428/2020]

PW-7, allegations against the accused-petitioner and co-accused

are similar in nature and there is no other specific evidence which

proves greater gravity of offence against the accused-petitioner;

benefit of bail was granted to both the co-accused; so far as

conduct of accused-petitioner in jail is concerned, one case under

Sections 151, 107 and 116 (3) Cr.P.C. has already been registered

against the petitioner.

In my humble opinion, the benefit of bail may not be

declined on this ground and after giving thoughtful consideration

upon the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and

perusal of statements of PW-6 & PW-7 and perusal of record and

looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and

discussions, as made hereinabove, without expressing any opinion

on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion

that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be

accepted.

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered

that the accused-petitioner Akshay Kumar S/o Sh. Rajendra

Jakhar @ Raju, arrested in connection with C.R. case No.12/2018,

Police Station Lalgarh Jattan, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be

released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two surety bonds

of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court

with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 4-rashi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)