KAILASH MANJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR No.158/2017 of Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 307, 120-B IPC and Sections 3 / 25 and 3 / 27 of the Arms Act. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these third bail application(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution story, on the basis of 'parcha-bayan' of Dinesh Bhambani (PW-1), the police registered FIR No.158/2017 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 3 / 25 and 3 / 27 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR, it is alleged that when the complainant was standing in the parking of a mall, five persons came there and one of them fired a gun shot hit to his back. The complainant immediately reached the hospital, where the police recorded his statements i.e. 'parcha-bayan' (Ex.P/1). In the said 'parcha-bayan', the complainant has alleged that five persons namely Shamsher Khan, Bayaan Khan, Raja Khan, Aabid Khan and Taujit Khan came on a motorcycle and one of them fired gun shot with the intention to kill him. Later on, the police recorded statements of brother of the complainant namely Girish Bhambani (PW-2), who has stated that his brother is having old enmity with Chandra Prakash @ Papita and Kailash Manju's gang and there is all possibility that either those persons or Shamsher Khan, who earlier threatened complainant's brother might have managed the said attack. During the course of investigation, the police arrested co- accused Rakesh Manju and Ramniwas and during the course of interrogation, they informed that on the instructions of the petitioner, they carried out the attack on the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the police arrested the petitioner and claimed that in the interrogation note, he has admitted that on his instructions, attack on the complainant was carried out. It is further submitted that now, statements of the injured Dinesh Bhambani (PW-1) and his brother Girish Bhambani (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court wherein, they have simply stated that they had doubt that the attack on the complainant was carried out on the instructions of the petitioner. It is submitted that except the said piece of evidence, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, two more prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and from their evidence also, it can be gathered that there is no cogent and reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 26.12.2018 and till date, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and as trial of the case is likely to take time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) 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 no such substantial change took place after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also guilty of threatening the complainant for not giving any evidence against him just before the day when for the first time, his statements were scheduled to be recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that in the said complaint, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner again carried out the attack on the house of the complainant and in that case also, charge- sheet has been filed against him. However, learned counsel for the complainant has frankly admitted that in the case of threatening, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court, however, in the case, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for getting the attack carried out on the house of the complainant, his bail has been rejected up to this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is having a criminal history and dozens of cases are pending against him and there is all possibility that if he is enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar type of activities and there is all possibility that the complainant may be further harassed by the petitioner.