STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. SANJAY SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three applications arise out of the same incident which took place on 9- 4-1987, in which three persons are said to have been murdered, therefore, all three applications are decided and disposed of by this order, The incident that took place on April 9; 1987, is said to be third in the string of incidents, two of which had already taken place. The first incident is said to have taken 15-20 days earlier then the date on which this incident took place in which Mst. Hasina is said to have been raped by Daulat and two others, whose names were not given at that time. In this incident, regarding which these applications have been filed, the contention of Shri Rajawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Mahaveer and Badrilal is that the name of both these applicants has been mentioned by Karan Singh, the auto-rikshaw driver only. Their names were not mentioned by other witnesses. It is also submitted that there is no allegation that either of these accused persons were not carrying any weapons with them. These accused persons are in custody since April 20, 1987. It is also stated that they have no previous criminal record to their discredit. It is further contended that their case is similar, if Not better than that of accused Sanjay Singh aged 18 years, who has been already released on bail. It is given come out that the age of accused Mahaveer is 20 years. It is further contended that in dying declaration of deceased Aysha, their names do not appear as the name of Sanjay Singh also does not appear.

(2.) The contention of Shri M.S. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for Sanjay Singh is that no ground exists for cancellation of the bail granted to Sanjay Singh. It is contended that one of the grounds taken in the application is that there is every likelihood that accused Sanjay Singh will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted by the learned counsel that accused Sanjay Singh has been on bail since 6th July, 1986, but not such specific allegation has been made, therefore, this ground does not exist in favour of prosecution for getting the bail granted to Sanjay Singh cancelled. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that even auto-riksha driver Karan Singh does not mention name of accused Sanjay Singh to be one of those who came along-with group of accused persons. It is also pointed out that no weapon has been recovered from this accused person. The plea of learned counsel is that in fact Sanjay Singh was only 16 years and four months, even though in the prosecution his age has been mentioned as 18 years.

(3.) It is also pointed out that his conduct in jail was very satisfactory and he has been attending all court hearings, which have taken place since he was released on bail. Shri Kumawat learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of State, points out that some-how at that time when application of accused Sanjay Singh was argued the statements of Raju, ten years old, son of deceased Ramjani (husband of Aysha) and that of Rakesh were not pointed out to the Court for consideration, therefore, the impact of these two statements could not be considered at that time. It is, therefore, submitted that these statements may be considered now and the bail may be cancelled as according to these witnesses, the presence of Sanjay Singh is proved at that time of incident.