RANG LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is second Bail Application. The first Bail Application was rejected on 26 -4 -86 by this Court Mr. A.K. Gupta learned Counsel for the petitioner says that when the first bail application was rejected, the Police did not submit the challan against the petitioner. Now the challan has been filed and after that, the second bail application has been moved. Mr. Gupta relied on the statement of Bhanwar Lal s/o Gauri Lai to whom the deceased Pari informed about her death. He showed the certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC by the Investigating Officer and the copy of the statement of Bhanwar Lai under Section 161 given to the petitioner at the time of filing challan. While reading both the statements Mr. Gupta stated that in the certified copy of the statement of Bhanwar Lal the 'words' mentioned are as follows: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) IN the statement of Bhanwar Lal which was supplied to the petitioner with the challan papers, the statement is as follows: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(3.) PROM seeing the certified copy of the statement of Bhanwar Lal recorded Under Section 161 Cr. PC, shows that while supplying the copy of the statement with the challan papers to the petitioner the important line was omitted by the Investigating Officer. This line is a very important line which reflects on the entire case and omitting this line from the statement supplied to the petitioner is nothing but intentional omission. This is very sad affair that the Investigating Officer in such manner plays mis -chief while giving copies of the challan papers to the accused persons. Such mis -chief is not expected from the prosecution department. The learned P.P. was asked to explain about this difference in both the statement and he replied that he has nothing to say in this matter. As the State is unable to explain this contradiction in the statements and failed to explain the omission of a material line, this Court has only to a believe the version of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the important line was intentionally omitted. This line is material and in view of this omission and other challan papers, I am of the opinion that the petitioner be ordered to be released on bail.