Yogendra @ Master S/O Shri Shyam ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3284 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.
                                324/2022

Yogendra @ Master S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Manjhi Thana Nadbai Dist. Bharatpur Raj. (Recently In
Custody From 13.01.2020 At Central Jail Bharatpur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Dr. Mithlesh Kumar
For Complainant(s)       :     Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For State                :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                         Judgment / Order

25/04/2022

1. Petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.19/2020 was registered at Police Station Nadbai,

District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,

341, 302 & 120-B I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that while

rejecting the first bail application it was observed by the Court

that there was CCTV Footage wherein petitioner is seen firing at

the deceased. It is also contended that as per the documents now

available, it is evident that in the CCTV Footage was fake and no

person was identified. It is further contended that so called Diwan

Singh has exaggerated the fact and he has stated that he was the

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-324/2022]

only eye witness whereas, other witnesses have not shown his

presence. It is also contended that deceased was history-sheeter

who had more than twenty cases registered against him.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the third bail application. It is contended that there

is specific allegation against the present petitioner of opening fire

at the deceased. It is also contended that fire arm is also

recovered from the petitioner.

5. I have considered the contentions and have perused the

statement of PW-9.

6. PW-9 in his statement has specifically stated that present

petitioner had fired at the deceased. Considering the same and

also the fact that fire arm was recovered from the present

petitioner, hence, I am not inclined to entertain the present

criminal misc. third bail application.

7. This third bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)