Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sajan Prajapat vs State on 15 November, 2021
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13660/2021
Sajan Prajapat S/o Shri Prem Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Shastri Colony, Boarawad, P.s. Makrana, Disrtrict Nagaur (At
Present Sub Jail, Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
Ms. Yogita Mohnani, for complainant
Mr. Anil Gupta for Mr. Swaroop Singh,
for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
15/11/2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel
for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and
perused the material available on record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.140/2021 of
Police Station Gudamalani, District Balotra for the offences
punishable under Section 306 IPC. He has preferred this bail
application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has
wrongly been implicated in the present case and there is no
evidence of abetment against him. Therefore, he may be enlarged
on bail.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-13660/2021]
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
complainant opposed the bail application and submit that during
the investigation, suicidal note of the deceased Paras Mal has been
found and in the suicidal note, name of the petitioner is mentioned
that he is responsible for his death.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon a judgment delivered in the case of
Criminal Appeal No.572/2000 (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs.
State of M.P.) reported in AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1998 and
submitted that suicidal note may not be taken as an evidence of
abetment. In counter to the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for
complainant has relied upon the judgment of the Karnatka High
Court passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.954/2018
(Raghavendra @ Raghu & Anr. Vs. State) reported in AIR Online
2019 Kar 812, wherein the judgment of Sanjay @ Sanjay Singh
Sengar (supra) has also been referred and considered and suicidal
note has been held relevant piece of evidence for offence under
Section 306 IPC.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of
the offence, particularly looking to the fact that the investigation is
going on and suicidal note has been recovered, at this stage, it is
not justified to examine the evidentiary value of the suicidal note
of deceased and merits of the case. Let the investigation be
completed and chargesheet be filed, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-13660/2021]
Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected at this stage.
However, the petitioner is at liberty to file fresh bail
application after submission of chargesheet.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
25-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
