NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second application for bail has been filed by petitioner because his earlier bail application No.3311/2010 was rejected by this court on 17.05.2010 with direction that petitioner would be at liberty to again apply for bail pending trial before court below itself after statements of complainant and prosecution witness Upendra Sharma are recorded. Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that statement of as many as six witnesses have been recorded including above referred to two witnesses. Learned counsel in particular referred to statement of complainant PW-6 Ram Kishore Goyal to argue that he, in his statement, has said that forged document was prepared by his tenant Rajendra Son of Badri Lal , Hanuman @ Ashok Son of Badri Lal, Sonu Son of Rajendra, Monu S/o Rajendra, Satyendra S/o Rajendra, Ram Dulari W/o Rajendra and Asha W/o Hanuman, because they had ill intention to grab his property. Such forged document was prepared in favour of accused-petitioner because he happened to be nephew of Rajendra and Hanuman. Learned counsel submitted that Shanti Devi, mother of petitioner Neeraj, has already been enlarged on bail by order of coordinate bench of this court dated 08.02.2010. Another co-accused Chakrawarti Sharma has been enlarged on bail by order of coordinate bench dated 06.04.2010, who was granted anticipatory bail, whereas yet another co-accused Ratan Lal was granted benefit of bail by learned court of sessions itself by order dated 04.08.2010. After recording statement of six witnesses now police has filed supplementary challan against co-accused Ratan Lal and Chakrawarti Sharma, effect of which is that all those witnesses whose statements have been recorded, would be re-summoned for their cross-examination which would further delay trial. Petitioner is a boy of 20 years old and is a resident of Resident of Mohalla Kangalpura, Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, and that he was arrested on 15.12.2009; thus has remained behind bars for last 11 months and even after rejection of first bail application he has remained behind bars for last six months.

(2.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant have opposed bail application and argued that petitioner being beneficiary, he should be treated main accused and therefore benefit of bail be declined to him. Having regard to submissions made at bar and considering duration of his detention and fact that many of co-accused have already been granted benefit of bail but without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits of case, I deem it just and proper to release accused-petitioner, namely, Neeraj Kumar Sharma Son of Banshidhar, Resident of Mohalla Kangalpura, Police Station Virat Nagar, District Jaipur (presently confined to Central Jail, Jaipur) on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.186/2009, Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Second bail application stands disposed of accordingly.