HAJI MUKHTYAR ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr.Bhoot, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while dismissing the earlier bail application on 19.11.1992 this Court has erred in relying on the observations made at the time of dismissal of second bail application on 28.4.1992 that possibility of petitioners fleeing oat from the hands of justice cannot also be completely ruled out particularly when the Court itself gave liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail application after the statement of alleged eye witnesses arc recorded. He also submits that there arc clear cut contradictions between the oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, the petitioners arc entitled to be bailed out to produce the witnesses in defence. He further submits that the petitioners may be granted bail and some conditions may be imposed to secure their presence. He has placed reliance on Babu Singh v. State of U.P. and State of Rajasthan. Jaipur v. Balchand Baliay.

(2.) On the other hand Mr. Singhvi, learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that looking to the nature of offence, the petitioners cannot be released on bail on any pretext at this stage. He has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Captain Budhikota Subha Rao. In rejoinder. Mr. Bhoot submits that this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant record as well as the case law.