HARIKISHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 79/2017 of Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while filing of the charge-sheet, the police have relied upon the statement of one eye-witness namely Bhagwana Ram, who happened to be the brother of the deceased. It is argued that in the police statement, Bhagwana Ram has alleged that only petitioner had assaulted his brother and he asked him not to do so. It is submitted that now the statement of Bhagwana Ram has been recorded in the trial court as PW-3 and in the said statement he improved a lot and also alleged that along with petitioner and his mother-Parmeshwari had also assaulted the deceased with bricks. It is submitted that though in the police statement PW-3 Bhagwana Ram has not stated that at the time of the incident, Mangilal also reached the spot but in his court statement he introduced Mangilal and stated that Mangilal and he asked the petitioner and his mother not to assault the deceased but surprisingly Mangilal has not been named as witness by the police. It is further submitted that from the perusal of Naksha Mauka (ExhibitP-8), it clear that presence of Bhagwana Ram at the place of the incident is doubtful. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only because his mother has filed a dowry case against PW-3 Bhagwana Ram, who happened to be brother of his father. It is submitted that as the testimony of PW-3 is not reliable, petitioner be enlarged on bail.