BALRAM Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material/record of the case made available to me during the arguments of the case.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner was not mentioned in FIR, however, on the basis of statement of Chhitarmal and Ramkishan the name of the petitioner has been added as an accused. He further submits that statement of Chhitarmal and Ramkishan were recorded on 17.3.2005 and 21.3.2005 i.e. after a period of more than one month. He further submits that Ramkishan so called witness and the injured Kallulal both are real brothers and both are sons of Jeewan Ram. There was no reason for Ramkishan to disclose the name of petitioner immediately after the date of incident. He further submits that due to political rivalry the accused has been implicated in the, case falsely. The case diary was summoned.

(3.) Although the learned P.P. has opposed the bail application but could not satisfy as to why the statement of Ramkishan, who was brother of the injured Kallulal, was not recorded immediately and no explanation has been given for the delay in recording the statement of Ramkishan.