LAWS(RAJ)-1995-5-1

ISHAQ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 16, 1995
ISHAQ Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have moved this IVth application for grant of bail under section 439 Cr. P.C. The first application was rejected on 12-8-1994 on merits. The second application was again dismissed on merits on 4-10-1994 and the third one was rejected on 17-2-1995.

(2.) During the course of arguments it was seriously contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner Jallu alias Jalaldeed was 16 years of age at the time of the incident, while petitioner Rustam was 12 years of age, as such, their trial is vitiated. According to the learned counsel both these petitioners being Juvenile offenders be given the benefit of bail. This argument was made by the learned counsel first time, as such a report was obtained from the concerned trial Court on this aspect of the matter. The learned trial Court has sent the report it was stated in the report that in the charge-sheet the year of birth of accused Rustam was mentioned as 1982, but in his arrest memo dated. 18-6-1994 his age was shown as 22 years. In the charge framed by the Court on 3-10-1994 the age of the petitioner Rustam was recorded as 22 years and this was disclosed by the act used himself. Similarly, for accused Jallu it was stated that in the charge-sheet his year of birth was mentioned as 1979, but in the arrest memo dated, 9-6-1994 his age was recorded as 25 years. The charges were framed against him by the trial court in which his age was recorded as 24 years which was stated by the accused-petitioner himself. In view of the aforesaid facts that argument docs not survive.

(3.) So far as merit of the case is concerned, the bail application has been rejected thrice. The trial has already made substantial progress, in as much as, by January 9, 1995, statement of 11 prosecution witnesses were already recorded. Consequently, I do find any ground to release the petitioner on bail in this IVth bail application. The application is therefore, rejected. However, in the facts and circumstances, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.