VIRENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present third bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.29/2018, Police Station Hamirvas, District Churu for the offence under Ss. 364, 302 and 201 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second bail application was dismissed by this Court on 22/1/2020 with liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of Raghuveer Singh is recorded before the trial court. The statement of Raghuveer Singh has been recorded before the trial court as PW-10. He further submits that the testimony of PW-10 is not credible as in the cross-examination he stated that he had not gone to the police station on 25/2/2018 but on 26/2/2018. He further submits that he had not met Chhotu Ram prior to 26/2/2018 and therefore, there was no occasion for him to inform the first informant Mahaveer regarding the name of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the testimony of PW-10 is not worth credence as an evidence of last seen.