JAMNA LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application is filed by Jamnalal Under Section 439, Cr. PC who is facing (rial along with Roshan lal and Bhanwar Lal and Kundan Lal in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 49 IPC.

(2.) ACCORDING to the prosecution Ganesh Lal Nagda lodged a written report at Police Station Pratap Nagar on 14 -9 -1983 alleging that on 13 -9 -1983 at about 11 p.m. in the night when he along with his family members was talking accused persons Bhanwar Lal, Roshan Lal Kundan Lal, Jamna Lal and Raju armed with deadly weapons came there and shouted that entire family be killed. It is alleged that Roshan Lal inflicted sword blow in the stomach of Bhagwati Lal. When Hukmi Chand, Fateh Lal, Chaturbhuj and Nirmala came to rescue Bhagwati Lal, were also injured by the accused persons. Bhagwati Lal died on account of the injuries. After completing the investigation the challan was filed against four accused persons. Raju being child is being tried separately by the Children's Court.

(3.) SHRI N.P. Gupta appeared on behalf of the complainant and is assisting the Government Advocate, has vehemently opposed the bail application. According to him this application is the 5th bail application and the and the first bail application was rejected by this Court on 5 -1 -1984 by giving a detailed order. He argued that Jamnalal is the main person who is the leader of all the other accused persons. He brought them and the main person who instigated for this offence. From the circumstances of this case as revealed during investigation, Jamnalal is the principal offender in this case and he cannot escape liability from the offence of murder. Thus according to Mr. Gupta a case under Section 302 read with 149 prima facie is made out against Jamanlal and as ordered by lower Court while disposing the first bail application he is not entitled to be released on bail. It was also argued that the witnesses were present in the Court but their statements were not recorded on account of objections taken by the accused persons, on every date when the prosecution witness was present one or another objection used to be raised by the accused persons and they are responsible for this delay of this case.