CHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PASSING of the order dated 31/7/2009 has led the petitioners to file this misc. petition (952/09) in revision petition No.839/09. By the order impugned, the learned trial court had dismissed the application for bail filed by the petitioners in Sessions Case No. 136/04 wherein cognizance was taken against both the petitioners in exercise of the powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and process, by way of non-bailable warrants, was issued on 14/5/2009. This court vide order dated 20/7/2009 had disposed of the revision petition (839/09), wherein the order dated 14/5/2009 was under challenge, with the directions that the petitioners shall appear on or before 3/8/2009 and in failing to do so the warrant of arrest passed by the learned trial court for the purpose of securing their presence shall be revived.

(2.) THE relevant facts for considering the present controversy are that a report (515/02) was lodged on 7.9.2002, on the parcha bayan of the injured Smt. Kalawati @ Kallo, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324,307 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. On conclusion of the investigation, the police filed challan against Kalyan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh for the offences under Sections 341,323, 324,326,307,34 IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. THEreafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions and charges were framed against Kalyan Singh and Ghanshyam Singh for the offences under Sections 323,323/34,324/34, 326/34, 307/34 and 341 IPC. THE said accused persons denied the charges and claimed for trial. On commencement of trial, the prosecution produced Kalawati @ Kallo PW1 and Ramkesh PW2. THEreupon the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. which was allowed on 14.5.09. On having taken cognizance against the petitioners Charan Singh and Gopal Singh, the learned trial court issued process against them, by way of non-bailable warrants. THE said order passed by the learned trial court was the matter of challenge in the revision petition (839/09) and the same was disposed of with the directions aforementioned. In compliance of the order dated 20.7.2009 both the persons namely Charan Singh and Gopal Singh appeared before the trial court on 31.7.2009. THEreafter an application for bail was moved by the accused/petitioners but the same came to be dismissed by the order impugned dated 31.7.2009.

(3.) THE fact remains that in the instant case never before the stage of during trial when an application under Section 319 was filed, the prosecution had taken any steps, on the basis of the material already existing on record, that some other persons have to be made as accused and they should be summoned. Now relying upon of the material of the investigation agency, the prosecution is rather taking 'u' turn and had opposed the bail application of the petitioner before the learned trial court. As a matter of fact the only question which was to be considered, at this stage by the learned trial court was as to how the presence of newly added accused, who had surrendered before it, could be ensured during the course of trial. But it appears that this aspect of the matter had been totally given a 'go-bye' by the learned court below. In the instant case it is significant that the persons who had been made accused, as per the prosecution case, since the beginning and are facing trial, have already been enlarged on bail and the persons who have been subsequently impleaded as an accused had been summoned by non-bailable warrants at the first instance and now they have been ordered to remain in jail, as their bail application has been dismissed by the learned trial court.