BHALLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused -petitioner has filed this second application for grant of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 46/2014 registered at Police Station Kudgaon (District Karauli) for the offences under Ss. 143, 323, 341, 354 and 307 IPC. After investigation charge -sheet has already been filed against petitioner, Rajesh @ Munna and Israr for offences under Ss. 341, 323, 325, 450, 326, 307 read with Sec. 34 IPC. Allegation against the petitioner and co -accused is that they entered into common intention to cause death of Shri Hemraj and in pursuance of the same, inflicted injuries to him. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this Court on merit vide a reasoned order dated 18.12.2015 at the stage when the case was under investigation. At that time this fact was also taken into consideration by this Court that benefit of bail has already been granted to the almost similarly situated co -accused -Shri Rajesh @ Munna by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court and although one of the injury found on the head of injured -Shri Hemraj has been opined to be dangerous to life by the doctor but there is no further opinion to the effect that the said injury is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The second application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Karauli vide order dated 7.1.2016 after taking into consideration the nature of injury, the role attributed to the petitioner in the incident and also his criminal antecedents.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that benefit of bail has already been granted to almost similarly situated co -accused -Shri Rajesh @ Munna by the Co -ordinate Bench of this High Court and, therefore, on the ground of parity, petitioner is also entitled to be treated in the same manner more particularly in view of the fact that only one injury on the head of injured -Shri Hemraj has been opined to be dangerous to life and from the evidence available on record it is not clear who is actual author of this injury. It was submitted that it is well settled legal position that if a co -accused has been extended benefit of bail even by a Co -ordinate Bench, the same benefit must also be granted to the similarly situated co -accused so as to maintain consistency in the orders. It was further submitted that although one of the injury has been opined to be dangerous to life, but no further opinion has been given by the doctor that the same was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature or it was likely to cause death and in absence of such opinion offence under Sec. 307 IPC cannot be said to be made out even prima facie. It was also submitted that as per statements of some of the independent prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation all the three accused, against whom charge -sheet has been filed, inflicted injuries to the head of injured -Shri Hemraj and no one has attributed injury No. 1 to the present petitioner whereas according to some of the witnesses, the petitioner did not inflict any injury to Shri Hemraj. It was further submitted that if the intention of the petitioner would have been to cause death of Hemraj, he would have used to sharp side of the weapon to cause injury and he would have repeated the blows but the same was not done by him. It was also brought to the knowledge of the Court that lacerated wound has been found on the head of the injured although use of sharp edged weapon has been attributed.

(3.) In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of State of Rajasthan v/s. Durga & Anr. reported in, 1979 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 629, Ram Singh & Ors. v/s. The State of Haryana reported in : JT 1998 (3) SC 167, Madhu v/s. The State of Rajasthan reported in, 1981 RCC 29, Ganga Singh v/s. The State of Rajasthan reported in, 1981 RCC 135, G.S. Walia v/s. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in : AIR 1998 SC 2857, Surja v/s. State of Rajasthan reported in, 1986 RLW 325 and Dharamveer v/s. State of Rajasthan reported in : JT 2000 (10) SC 318.