RAJU @ RAJURAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on the record.

(2.) The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.651/2014, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 450, 323 and 34 of the IPC.

(3.) The prosecution, while filing the charge -sheet has come out with a specific case that the assailant who committed murder of Padma Devi was Banshilal. The petitioner was subjected to test identification at the hands of the concerned witnesses. The witness Radha as well as the injured Teeja Devi failed to identify the present petitioner. Thus, apparently the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of Banshilal. Other than interrogation notes of the accused, and the prosecution allegation that the accused petitioner was seen making inquiries about the house of one Nandu a day before the incident, there is hardly any other evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the present petitioner with the alleged offences.