AMAN BANSHIWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.447/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Ss. 302, 201 and 120-B IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that statements of material witnesses namely Vishwas Jangid and Himanshi have been recorded before the competent criminal court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Himanshi (PW2), learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid witness has been declared hostile by competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that there are large number of omissions and contradictions in the statement of Vishwas Jangid (PW-1). Learned counsel submitted that there is no direct/corroboratory evidence available on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded as the trial has been stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 18/4/2023 passed in S.B.Cr. Revision No.682/2022 "Navam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.", therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that merely because Himanshi (PW-2) has turned hostile it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that it is wrong to contend that there are large number of contradictions in the statement of the witness Vishwas Jangid (PW-1). Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the statement of Vishwas Jangid, clearly indicates that the petitioner is directly involved in commission of alleged crime. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 15/5/2023 dismissed the second bail application filed on behalf of co-accused Mayank Bagoriya being S.B.Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.2269/2023. Learned counsel submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the coaccused person and since the coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the second bail application of co-accused person, the instant bail application preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.