GEETA DEVI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail cancellation application has been filed under Sec. 439(2) Cr.P.C. by the petitioner (complainant) against the order dtd. 31/5/2022 passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.298/2022 arising out of FIR No.72/2020 registered at Police Station Balotra, District Barmer for offences punishable under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC releasing the accused-respondent No.2 on bail.

(2.) Mr. Deendayal Panwar, husband of the petitioner (complainant) - Smt. Geeta Devi present-in-person submits that the bail application of the accused respondent No.2 was granted by learned trial court vide order dtd. 31/5/2022 and the bail application of co-accused namely Daulat Ram and Pukhraj was granted by this Court on 20/12/2021. It is further submitted that before granting bail to accused-respondent No.2 Champa Lal, he along with 15-20 persons came and threatened the present petitioner (complainant) and also caused injuries to her. In this regard, on 10/5/2022 an FIR bearing number 118/2022 was also lodged by the petitioner at Police Station Pachpadra, District Barmer for offences punishable under Ss. 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and investigation in the said FIR is still going on. It is submitted that charges have been framed by the trial court against accused respondent No.2-Champa Lal and statement of complainant Geeta Devi (PW.1) has also been recorded. He further argued that accused respondent No.2 Champa Lal did not appear before the trial Court on the date of hearing. He lastly submits that there is an apprehension that the accused persons may give threatening and cause harm to the petitioner (complainant). In these circumstances, the application for cancellation of bail of the accused shall be allowed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 has supported the order passed by the trial Court and submitted that the co-accused Daulat Ram and Pukhraj had already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The present petitioner (complainant) moved an SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court on 5/7/2023 against the order dtd. 20/12/2021 by which co- accused Daulat Ram and Pukhraj had been enlarged on bail and the same has also been rejected with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial of the case at the earliest. Thereafter, the petitioner (complainant) appeared before the trial Court and trial in the case is going on, therefore, no interference is required from this Court.