MAHAVEER PRASAD ASOPA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for seeking bail in connection with FIR No. 167/2017 registered at Police Station Gulabpura, District Bhilwara. Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sec. 306 IPC, and presently trial is under progress, in Sessions Case No. 81/2017, pending before Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities) cases, Bhilwara.

(2.) The first bail application at the behest of petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 15/11/2017.

(3.) Pressing this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after rejection of first bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. It is argued by learned counsel that initially, in the FIR, petitioner was not named but during investigation his name surfaced, and upon conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet for the aforesaid offence is filed against him. Learned counsel has further argued that petitioner was apprehended during investigation on 9/6/2017 and since then more than two years have passed and so far during trial out of 25 prosecution witnesses, only 8 have been examined, therefore, completion of trial in near future is improbable. It is also argued by learned counsel that P.W.2, the first informant and real brother of the deceased, Dinesh Sharma has projected an embellished version from his police statements so as to implicate the petitioner. Taking a dig at the statement of P.W.2 Dinesh Sharma, it is submitted by learned counsel that if the statements are examined in totality, then, it would ipso facto reveal that essentially the statements are inculpatory, vis-a-vis, Hansraj i.e. husband of the deceased, but Investigating Agency has not even charge-sheeted him for any offence. It is also submitted by learned counsel that P.W.4 Chand Devi, mother of deceased, during her deposition, has highlighted serious acrimony between spouses and further asserted that there was matrimonial dispute between them going on before the Court. It is also argued by learned counsel that P.W.4 has also projected an improved version from her earlier police statements, therefore, prima facie, there are serious contradictions in her statements also. With all these submissions, learned counsel has argued that taking into account the substantial change in the circumstances, petitioner may be released on bail.