JAI PRAKASH @ J.P Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the accused (Jai Prakash) alias J.P. has been merely ascribed the role of exhortation and has not been involved in either firing the weapon or of giving any blows to the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that earlier there was an altercation between Jai Prakash and other co-accused about a month prior to the date of incident. The incident took place on 3.12.2002. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, alongwith two others, approached Gali No. 3 where they found the deceased at the Chabutra. There was a heated exchange of words and in the meanwhile, one Pratap, alongwith Gaje and two others, approached the same spot through another gali. On seeing Pratap and others approaching, the accused/applicant exhorted Pratap to finish the deceased, whereupon Pratap fired and the deceased was hit and he started running. The case of the prosecution is further that all the persons including Jai Prakash ran after the deceased. However, it is not clear as to whether Jai Prakash participated in apprehending the deceased and giving any blows or in any manner physically assaulting the deceased.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the State opposed the grant of bail saying that it is only at the instance of the accused (Jai Prakash) that the other accused (Pratap) fired the country-made pistol and, as a result of which, the death of the deceased took place and, therefore, this is a fit case in which bail should be refused. He further submitted that out of the 30 witnesses, 14 have been examined and now formal witnesses remain. Therefore, the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has, however, submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 12.12.2002 and it does not appear as if the trial would conclude at an early date. Moreover, he has sought to place reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Brij Mohan @ Mohan @ Pappu Vs. State, 1997 JCC 508 , in support of his contention that mere exhortation, which is different from participation, would not disentitle an accused in a murder case from the grant of bail. In this case, apart from the exhortation of the accused (Jai Prakash), any other active role or participation in the crime itself is not very clear.