Daya Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 160 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14990/2022

Daya Ram S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nethrana Tehsil Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh (At Present Confined At Dist. Jail Churu)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Rohit Duria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Order

05/01/2023

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.

65/2019 of Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for the

offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 IPC. He has preferred

this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The first bail application was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench

of this Court as not pressed vide order dated 17.02.2022..

Counsel for the petitioner submits that now material

witnesses have been examined before the trial court and they

have given stereotype statements. Further according to the FSL

report, the portion of viscera gave positive tests for the presence

of Organophosphorous Insecticide. Thus, it is argued that the

deceased committed suicide and the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in this case. It is further argued that so far only 23

witnesses out of 39 witnesses have been examined and trial is

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-14990/2022]

likely to take long time, therefore, petitioner may be enlarged on

bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the

judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parvat Singh Vs.

State of M.P ( Criminal Appeal No. 374/2020) dated 02.03.2020

and judgments passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Lal Chand Vs. state of Raj. reported in 2010(2) Cri.L.R.

(Raj. ) 1679 and Kumari Chandra @ Sati Lajnani Vs. State of Raj

reported in 2018 (3) RLW 2382.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed

the bail application.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and

carefully gone through the record.

In this case, so far 23 material witnesses have been

examined before the trial court. PW/1 Arzoo who is the daughter

of petitioner has specifically stated that the present petitioner as

well as co-accused Sushil Kumar first gave beating to her mother

and thereafter, poured spray (insecticide) into the mouth of

deceased. She has further stated that all the siblings were locked

by the accused persons in a room. Likewise, PW/3 Rahul who is

the son of present petitioner and deceased has also specifically

stated that present petitioner as well as co-accused Sushil Kumar

gave beating to his mother and poured insecticide into the mouth

of his mother. PW/6 Sanjay, is the brother of deceased who lodged

the FIRhas also stated that Daya ram, Dhanna ram, Sushil and

Atma Ram have killed his sister. He also produced the recording of

conversation between her sister and her husband. PW/7 Mange

Ram who is also brother of the deceased corroborates the story of

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-14990/2022]

prosecution. Similarly, PW/8 Kumari Mukta who is the sister of

deceased has stated that the children informed her that both the

accused persons caught hold of their mother and the present

petitioner forcibly poured spray (insecticide) into the mouth of

deceased. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said at

this stage that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the

petitioner is not involved in the offence.

So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner

are concerned, it is submitted that in the said cases, the Hon'ble

Court had acquitted the accused persons holding that the accused

persons cannot be convicted for serious offence of murder solely

on the testimony of child witnesses. However, in the present case,

apart from the child witnesses, there are other witnesses who

have corroborated the story of prosecution without any material

contradictions. Therefore, the cases relied upon by counsel for the

petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. Thus, the

present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused

petitioner. Moreover, the bail application of co-accused Sushil

Kumar has also been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court

and case of the petitioner is not distinguishable.

No case for bail is made out for enlarging the petitioner on

bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 144-BJSH/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)