SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioners have laid these two separate second bail applications under . arising out of common FIR No.165/2017 of Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by a common order. In the FIR, the petitioners are charged for offence punishable under Sections 147 , 148 , 341 , 324 , 325 , 326 , 427 , 307 , 397 , 395 IPC and Section 3 / 25 of the Arms Act.

(2.) Earlier on behalf of petitioners, an endeavour was made for seeking bail but the same was rejected vide order dated

(3.) 11.2017 as at that point of time investigation was inconclusive. 3. Pressing these second bail applications, it is argued by learned counsel Mr. Dhirendra Singh that now investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet has already been filed. Learned counsel has further submitted that accused-petitioner Surendra Singh was not named in the FIR and in the statements of witnesses also he was earlier not named but sought to be implicated in the supplementary statements. Learned counsel has also argued that there is no recovery of any weapon from petitioner -Surendra Singh and he is having no criminal antecedents. While pressing second bail application for the other accused-Kanwaraj Singh, it is submitted by learned counsel that though he is named in the FIR but allegations against him are omnibus and no specific role is assigned to him for inflicting grave and serious injury to injured persons Dungar Singh, Gaurav Singh and Chandrapal Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that although upon his information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pipe is recovered but if that recovery is tested on the touchstone of the injury suffered by the victim, then it would ipsofacto reveal that the same cannot be prima facie categorized as a weapon of offence. Learned counsel has further argued that looking to the nature of injuries suffered by injured persons which are mostly incised wounds it is rather difficult to comprehend that the pipe was used as a weapon of offence. It is also argued by learned counsel that looking to the nature of injuries, prima facie, offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out and it cannot travel beyond Section 325 IPC. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner-Surendra Singh and Kanwaraj Singh are in custody since 13.10.2016 and 16.09.2017 respectively, and therefore, in the backdrop of changed circumstances their second bail application merits favourable consideration.