Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vikash Vishnoi vs State on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 16016/2021
Vikash Vishnoi S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Jun Ki
Dhani, Ravar, P.s. Bilara, Dist. Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. Abhishek Charan for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
14/02/2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR
No.134/2020 of Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur
for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 302/120
and 201 IPC. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these
second bail application(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-16016/2021]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
after rejection of earlier bail application of the petitioner,
statement of prosecution witness namely Nirma @ Gudiya
has been recorded before the trial court, wherein she has
not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It
is further submitted that the above-named witness during
police investigation has informed that on two
motorcycles, accused persons namely Hadman Ram,
Budha Ram, Vikas and Raju Ram came there. Learned
counsel has submitted that now the said witness has not
supported the prosecution story and turned hostile and
has specifically stated that she has not identifed the
accused persons during the course of police investigation.
It is, thus, submitted that it is a case of no evidnce and
the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as
learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently
opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the
complainant has argued that not only the prosecution
witness Nirma @ Gudiya but brother of the deceased
namely Rohit has also specifically identified the petitioner
and other co-accused persons during the course of police
investigation.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-16016/2021]
The prosecution witness Nirma @ Gudiya, in her
police statement, has identified the petitioner and other
co-accused persons in the CCTV footage, but in her court
statement, she has not supported the prosecution story
and turned hostile. So far as witness Rohit is concerned, I
have gone through his police statement and in those
statement, he has simply stated that he was informed
that the incident is carried out by the petitioner and other
co-accused persons.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and
proper to grant bail to the petitioner(s) under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this/these second bail application(s)
filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is
directed that petitioner(s) - Vikash Vishnoi S/o Hanuman
Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR
No.134/2020 of Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur
provided he/she/they execute(s) a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties
of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial
court for his/her/their appearance before that court on
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-16016/2021]
each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till the completion of the trial.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
68 - ms rathore
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
