MOHAN LAL 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 F.I.R. No.172/2023 registered at Police Station Rohida, Dist. Sirohi, for the offences under Ss. 307, 326, 341, 323/34 of IPC and Sec. 4/25 of Arms Act. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner along with the co-accused persons inflicted injuries upon the injured- Nathu Ram with sharp weapon (sword). Learned counsel submitted that though the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioner upon the injured are grievous in nature, but not dangerous to life.

(2.) Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the injured- Nathu Ram (PW2) have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and therefore, there is no apprehension of he being influenced by the present petitioner; and that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is a specific allegation of inflicting injuries upon the injured by a sharp weapon (sword) against the present petitioner and therefore, looking to the seriousness of accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail, however, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused persons namely Fataram and Goklaram have already been enlarged on bail.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the statements of the material witnesses vis-a-vis PW1 and PW2, this Court prima facie finds that though the injuries allegedly inflicted by the present petitioner upon the injured are grievous in nature, but not dangerous to life. This Court prima facie finds that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of petitioner influencing them or tampering with the evidence. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner fleeing away from justice in case he is enlarged on bail and that the co-accused persons namely Fataram and Goklaram have already been enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.