VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Ss. 365, 364A, 302 and 34 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused Vinay Dhawan recorded under Sec. 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submitted that except the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that from the perusal of FIR and charge-sheet, it is evident that co-accused Vinay Dhawan was demanding money from the deceased owing to some business relations. Learned counsel submitted that in the entire FIR and charge-sheet, there is no evidence of motive against the present petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that co-accused Sunil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 3/5/2023 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.1805/2023.

(3.) Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Learned counsel thus, implored the court to accept the bail application. The order dtd. 3/5/2023 passed by this Court in the case of Sunil is reproduced hereinbelow: