Deepak Kumar S/O Babban Prasad vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4622 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:21314]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 6624/2023
Deepak Kumar S/o Babban Prasad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Gaijha, Police Station Phase-II, District Gautam Buddh Nagar,
(Utter Pradesh) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In
District Jail Alwar)
                                                            ----Accused-Petitioner
                                       Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Imran Khan, PP


    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
                    Judgment / Order
06/09/2023

The present second bail application has been filed under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection

with FIR No.501/2022 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar,

District Alwar for the offence(s) under Section(s) 457, 395 & 397 of

I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has neither

been named in the FIR nor, in the Court statement of the

complainant- Shri Subhash Chand Goyal (PW-1). He submits that the

petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2022 and prays for release on

bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second

bail application.

Heard. Considered.

The first bail application filed by the petitioner after submission

of the charge-sheet was dismissed by this Court vide order dated

12.01.2023 after appreciating the rival contentions raised by the

[2023:RJ-JP:21314] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6624/2023]

learned counsels for the respective parties on account of grave

allegation of committing dacoity at the residence of the complainant

during night armed with deadly weapons and of inflicting injuries on

the person of the complainant and his wife, his identification by the

complainant during test identification parade, recovery of

incriminating material on the information furnished by him under

Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter, as many as 13

prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is neither named in

the FIR nor, in the statement of the complainant (PW-1) is wholly

misconceived and does not merit acceptance. As per the prosecution

case, the accused-petitioner was wearing mask and was not known

to the complainant. A perusal of the statement of the complainant-

Shri Subhash Chand Goyal reveals that he has supported the

prosecution case. It is trite law that marshalling of evidence is not

permissible at the time of consideration of bail application which is to

be done by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage.

In view of gravity of offence, custody for last about 13 months

cannot be treated as a ground to extend the petitioner on bail

especially, when 13 prosecution witnesses have already been

examined out of total 29 prosecution witnesses. In view thereof,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court

is not inclined to extend the petitioner benefit of bail.

The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

Sudha/100

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)