NARSI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all the four petitions have been filed by the petitioner Narsi under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail already granted to the accused respondents namely Thakarsi vide order dated 3rd November, 2009; Smt. Mangli Devi, Smt. Geeta Devi, Smt. Seeta Devi, Smt. Chhoti Devi, Smt. Jamna Devi and Smt. Ganga Devi vide order dated 27th October, 2009; Bhonri Devi and Soni Devi vide order dated 23rd October, 2009; and bail granted under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. to Nanchhu Ram vide order dated 13th April, 2010, rendered by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur, District Jaipur in one FIR No. 157/2009 registered at Police Station Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur for the offences under Section 143, 148, 149, 341, 323, 447 and Section 302 of IPC added during investigation, hence, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that one FIR No. 157/2009 came to be registered for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325 and 452 and 302 of IPC at Police Station Jamwaramgarh. The accused-respondents applied for anticipatory bail and all of them were bailed out by the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the accused respondent Thakarsi is the main accused of this case. The bail petitions of many other accused persons have been dismissed by this Court numerous times and the case of the accused-respondent Thakarsi is not distinguishable from those accused persons, whose bail petitioners were dismissed by this Court. They are alleged to have been involved for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, which is of a grave nature, hence, the bail already granted to them, should be cancelled.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner cited one judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Tikam Chand v. State of Raj. & Anr.,1993 2 WLC 412, in support of his arguments. In this case, this Court observed that merely because the fact that the charge-sheet was filed and the accused did not misuse the bail, the application with regard to the cancellation of bail could not be dismissed.