AJAY RINWA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being arrested in furtherance of investigation into FIR No.68/2017, registered at Police Station Dudhwa Khara, District Churu, for alleged offences under Section 302, 120-B IPC, accused-petitioner has laid this bail application under Section 439, Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences against present petitioner and other accomplice Surjeet for offence under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act but keeping investigation pending against other accused-persons.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mahesh Bora submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR as assailant but sought to be implicated as conspirator alongwith Kamal Ramsara for avenging old rivalry with deceased Mahendra. Learned Senior Counsel contends that while submitting charge-sheet against petitioner, police has expressed its doubts about involvement of other accomplice Kamal Ramsara. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that in fact during investigation no tangible evidence has come to the fore for constituting offence of criminal conspiracy against petitioner within the meaning of Section 120-A IPC. Mr. Bora has argued that the very edifice of charge-sheet against petitioner for aforesaid offences is the statements of Ramchandra Kasba recorded during investigation. Learned counsel submits that those statements cannot be prima facie construed as inculpatory to show nexus of petitioner with the alleged offence as one of the conspirators. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that during investigation nothing has revealed to show any communication of the petitioner with assailants (accused) ao as to establish his connivance for doing an illegal work. While referring to the statements of Vikram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 learned Senior Counsel argued that his statements are nothing but hearsay evidence, therefore, not inspiring confidence. Learned Senior Counsel, while taking a dig at the statements of Ramchandra Kasba, submits that those statements were recorded four months after the incident, therefore, prima facie, it is a clear case of false implication. While referring to pending criminal cases against petitioner, which is precisely the ground set out in the order of learned Sessions Judge for nixing the bail plea of petitioner, learned Senior Counsel has urged that same cannot be construed as a plausible ground sans any cogent evidence showing his involvement in the alleged offences. Further elaborating his submission in this behalf, learned Senior Counsel submits that out of 19 cases, in 12 cases petitioner is acquitted and in the case shown at item No.7, he has been acquitted for offence under Section 308 IPC and for rest of the offences extended benefit of probation. In totality, learned Senior Counsel contends that only three cases are pending against petitioner besides the present case. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel argues that in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances of case, when during investigation no plausible evidence showing involvement of the petitioner in alleged offences is forthcoming, it would not be appropriate to keep him in custody as he is in custody since last more than five months.