RAKESH MANJU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire prosecution case is false because the petitioner has been implicated in the case on the basis of identification by complainant, Dinesh Bhambani, but in the report submitted by him, name of the petitioner is not appearing. However, subsequently, during investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested because in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is stated by the complainant that I can identify the person who has inflicted gunshot injury upon him, but this fact was not disclosed by him in the FIR, therefore, it is a case in which the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Charge sheet has already been filed in the trial court.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that specific assertion was made by the complainant in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he can identify the person who has caused gunshot injury upon him, and subsequently identification parade was conducted in Central Jail, Jodhpur in which the petitioner was identified by the complainant. Therefore, there is no question to accept the prayer of the petitioner for granting bail because there is evidence of his involvement. It is also submitted that the recoveries were also made at the instance of accused petitioner to connect him with the crime.