Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 March, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1105/2022
Rakesh S/o Mangna Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 22 Years,
Ramnagar, Radka Bera, P.s. Bhojasar, Dist. Jodhpur. (In Judicial
Custody At Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
assisted by Ms. Sampati Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
Mr. Deepak Bishnoi for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
14/03/2022
Heard.
The first bail application of the petitioner was
dismissed by this Court as not pressed vide order dated
3.2.2021 while granting him liberty to file a fresh bail
application before the trial court after recording of the
statements of the eye witnesses.
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-1105/2022]
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
charges have been framed against the petitioner on
23.3.2021 and thereafter three eye witnesses namely
Ganpat Ram, Shiv Lal and Suresh have been summoned,
but they failed to appear before the trial court, then the
trial court has issued summons to the above-referred eye
witnesses from time to time, but they are deliberately
not appearing before the trial court to give their
evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed
that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the
petitioner is entitled to 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 submitted
that the above-named eye witnesses including one more
eye witness namely Urmila wife of Shyam Lal are ready
to give their evidence before the trial court, but as the
accused persons are very influential and dangerous, they
are constantly threatening the eye witnesses either not to
give evidence against them or not to support the
prosecution story.
Learned counsel for the complainant has also
submitted that various applications have been preferred
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-1105/2022]
by the eye witnesses as well as the complainant before
the police authorities such as the Superintendent of
Police, Jodhpur (Rural) as well as the Dy. Superintendent
of Police, Osian, District Jodhpur to provide protection to
the eye witnesses, but the police has failed to take any
action. It is further submitted that if proper protection is
provided to the eye witnesses, they are ready to give
their evidence as and when summoned by the trial court
for the same.
Taking into consideration the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to
dispose of this second bail application with a direction to
the Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural) to verify
the factum of threat to the eye witnesses in connection
with the FIR No.60/2020 of Police Station Bhojasar
immediately and if requires so, proper protection be
provided to the said eye witnesses as well as the
complainant and ensure that the said eye witnesses may
give their evidence before the trial court without any fear
or influence of the accused party or any other person.
It is expected that the police will do needful in the
matter and the eye witnesses namely Ganpat Ram, Shiv
Lal, Suresh, Urmila and complainant Kaluram will depose
before the trial court at the earliest.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-1105/2022]
However, the petitioner is free to move a fresh bail
application before the trial court after recording of the
evidence of the aforesaid eye witnesses.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of
Police, Jodhpur (Rural) forthwith.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
86-msrathore/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
