NAVIN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these post arrest bail applications are arising out of common FIR bearing No.480/2017, registered at Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, therefore, both are heard together and disposed of by a common order.

(2.) In the FIR aforesaid, both the petitioners are charged for offence punishable under Sections 395, 397, 412 and 120B IPC. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the matter and presently trial is under progress in Sessions Case No.85/2017.

(3.) It is argued by, Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for petitioner-Rajendra Sihag, that he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Learned counsel has further argued that learned Sessions Judge framed charges against petitioner for offence under Section 395 read with 120B, 397 read with Section 120B and 402 IPC. It is also argued by learned counsel that there is no recovery of any weapon from the petitioner. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the alleged recovery of cash amount upon disclosure of the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is full of discrepancies inasmuch as the recovery is shown at 01:45PM whereas information in this behalf by co- accused Navin Kumar was divulged posterior to it at 02:30PM. Learned counsel has further argued that the alleged recovery is also after a lapse of a month from date of incident and in the original FIR and police statements of complainant identity of the petitioner was not disclosed but it is only in the supplementary statements, petitioner is sought to be implicated. Learned counsel has further argued that as regard antecedents of the petitioner, suffice it to say that out of total four cases registered against him in one case compromise is arrived at and in another case he has been acquitted, therefore, besides this case only one case of trivial offence is pending.