GAJRALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as, he was not even named in the first information report whereas, injured Vikram Singh and Mahaveer Singh have subsequently in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. named him as a fourth assailant after the FIR was registered. His case is distinguishable from other accused because all are named in the FIR whereas, petitioner was named subsequently by informant Vikram Singh in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If the informant Vikram Singh named petitioner subsequently, there was no reason why he did not name petitioner in the FIR itself. There was another accused Gajralal name say of petitioner, who was principal accused and he was attributed the fatal injuries sustained by deceased Vijendra Singh, one head injury and another on the right jigomatic region. Learned counsel submitted that even otherwise, no specific injury has been assigned to the petitioner. Deceased sustained in all five injuries whereas, other injured received only simple injuries. Petitioner was arrested on 28/11/2010 and challan has been filed. There is no other criminal case pending against the petitioner.

(2.) Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

(3.) Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.