SUMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present bail application U/s. 439, Cr. P. C. , arises out of a murder in an election dispute in a remote small village known as Rol of the Nagaur District of Rajasthan, THE prosecution case is that on the day of the occurrence, procession of the elected Sarpanch was taken in the village. THE deceased did not vote for the Sarpanch. Due to this one Rameshwar, who happened to be the nephew of the deceased, went to the house of the deceased and after reprimanding him for not giving vote to the Sarpanch, stabbed him with a knife. THE other three accused, who are the applicants before this Court for grant of bail, were accompanying the accused at that time and they caught hold of the deceased and also cried that the deceased must be killed.

(2.) NORMALLY, in a case of this nature under Sec. 302 pending trial, the request for bail could not have been considered seriously at all. However, Mr. Chatterjee for the petitioner has pointed out a few extraordinary features of the case, which require consideration: - 1. that all the eye-witnesses of the occurrence including the wife of the deceased not only assigns no part to the three applicants, Sumer Singh and others, but they expressly exculpate these accused, 2. that the first information report was lodged in the police station in the presence of the deceased, but in that first information report, the present three accused have not been in any manner connected with the crime, 3. that the first information report was lodged earlier and dying declaration was recorded later on The dying declaration cannot have any more value then the initial information lodged by the brother of the deceased in the presence of the deceased in police station. Mr. Chatterjee, on the basis of the above features of the case, submits that this is one of those cases where it can be safely said, using the language and words of section 431, Cr. P. C. , that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with life imprisonment or death.

(3.) IT would be thus clear that the above propositions only relate to those criminal appeals which are pending in the High Court for the last about 5 to 6 years, and have not been disposed of on account of delay caused due to no fault of the accused.