Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satish Kumar vs State on 9 June, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta Judge)
(1 of 3) [CRLMB-4274/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4274/2021
Satish Kumar S/o Kirtar Singh, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste
Jat, R/o Baseri Chahar Kirawali, Police Station Kagarol, District
Agra. Presently, House No. 29 Anumnagar Fajalpur, P.s.
Kankarkheda, District Merath (U.p.). (In Judicial Custody At
Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagmal Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, through
Cisco Webex
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
(VACATION JUDGE)
Judgment
09/06/2021
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner
under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with CR No.7/2006
Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur for the offences under
Sections 302, 201 and 120B of IPC.
2. Mr. Choudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the reason for which the petitioner has
been roped in is only that the petitioner stayed in Raneja Hotel, a
day before the incident. He submits that the main accused
Hemlata, Narpat and Bhanwar Singh have been acquitted by
Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 14.12.2011
passed in DB Cr. Appeal Nos. 122,166 and 95 of 2008 and even
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4274/2021]
the co-accused Javed Khan has been enlarged by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2014 passed in SB Cr.
Misc. III Bail Application No.4057/2014 (Javed Khan Vs. State of
Rajasthan).
3. Learned Senior Counsel argues that since the story of the
prosecution has been found untenable by the Division Bench of
this Court and as there is no other allegation or incriminating
evidence against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the
petitioner's case is different from that of aforesaid co-accused.
4. Mr. Bishnoi, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
the bail application, inter alia, contending that the petitioner has
been absconding and even on facts of his case, he should not be
given benefit of bail.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
considering that the co-accused Hemlata & Ors have already been
acquitted by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated
14.12.2011 and other co-accused Javed Khan has been enlarged
on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court; and upon perusal of
the evidence submitted alongwith the charge-sheet, this Court
does not find any evidence, which can distinguish petitioner's case
from that of remaining co-accused. In this view of the matter,
according to this Court, petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
6. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The petitioner Satish Kumar S/o Kirtar Singh,
arrested in CR No.7/2006 Police Station Dangiyawas, District
Jodhpur shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond
in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to
the satisfaction of the trial Court.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4274/2021]
7. Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all
dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. Needless to observe that the above observations made by
this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the
Court. They are only prima-facie observation and the same shall
however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take
independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral
evidence, while finally deciding the case.
(DINESH MEHTA), VJ.
2-CPGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
