SUNIL KUMAR ALIAS CHHANGA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. This is second bail application. The first bail application came to be dismissed on 03.04.2006 as it was not pressed by the counsel for the petitioner. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of witness Vijay Singh is recorded. Counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the statement of Vijay Singh. I have carefully gone through the statement of witness Vijay Singh.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similarly situated co-accused Vishnu Kumar has been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 06.03.2006 and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Vishnu Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from the statement of PW-1, the sole eye witness, that the injuries were inflicted to deceased Balveer by Sheru @ Kailash and Subhash @ Pappu and Chhotu @ Amritpal caught hold the deceased.

(3.) PW-1 Vijay Singh is the injured witness. From the perusal of his statement, it nowhere appears that the present petitioner inflicted any injury to him or the deceased. Be that as it may, since similarly situated co-accused Vishnu Kumar has been released on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the oral arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.