Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9767 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5880/2021

Dinesh Kumar S/o Kalla Ram Mali, Aged 28 Years, R/o Karawadi, At Present Bhinmal, PS Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore, Raj. (Presently Confined At Sub Jail Bhinmal, Dist. Jalore).

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ranawat through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiar Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA (VACATION JUDGE) Judgment / Order

09/06/2021

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 F.I.R. No.412/2019, Police Station Bhinmal,

District Jalor, registered for the offence under Section 304(B) and

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video

conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor present-in-person.

Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of

rejection of first bail application, liberty was granted to the

accused-petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the

statements of Ganpat, Praveen Kumar, Arjun and Paarsaram.

Thereafter, statement of Ganpat and Chagan Devi who is father

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5880/2021]

and mother of the deceased has been recorded and they have not

supported the prosecution story; that the trial will take time. 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 stated that in rejection

order of first bail application, it was categorically mentioned that

accused-petitioner is free to file fresh bail application after

recording the statements of Ganpat, Praveen Kumar, Arjun and

Paarsaram. But, till today, only statement of Ganpat has been

recorded out of four witnesses and condition imposed in rejection

order of first bail application is not complied with. Therefore,

benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

looking to the fact that statement of only one witness out of four

witnesses has been recorded; therefore, 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 rejected.

Accordingly, the second bail application filed by the petitioner

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA (VACATION JUDGE)),J

18-amit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)