OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application by the accused-petitioner, Om Prakash, under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, for being released on bail, is directed against the order, dated March 2, 1979 by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur whereby he cancelled the bail granted to the accused-petitioner by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shri R. R. P. Bhatnagar; vide his order, dated October 23, 1978.

(2.) ON August 18, 1978, 11 miscreants, including the petitioner, Om Prakash in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy, after having been armed with deadly weapons, raided the house of Shobha Ram (since deceased ). Eight of the miscreants were clading Khaki dresses and the remaining three were putting on ordinary clothes. The prosecution case is that Om Prakash fired a shot towards Shobha Ram. as a result whereof he met instantaneous death. The son of the deceased, Moolaram was also dragged out and was then abducted by the culprits. ON August 31, 1978, Om Prakash returned to the village and demanded a ransom of Rs. 40,000/- for the return of the child and informed Sarwan Lal that if the relatives of the child were interested to have him alive, they should proceed to the ravine of the river ONtegan at 4 p. m. with Rs. 40,000/-and receive the child after making payment of the ransom. He also threatened that in case an information was given to the police, the child would be done to death. Information of this warning was given to the Additional Superintendent of Police. The raiding party divided itself into two groups and on reaching the spot the police had to encounter the culprits. All the miscreants, except Om Prakash, escaped. The accused-petitioner was arrested and the child Moolaram was recovered. First information report for offences under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307. I. P. C. , was recorded, with which this court is not concerned at present. The incident, relating to the occurrence of August 18, 1978, was reported at the Police Station, Rajakheda, on August 19, 1978, at 6 a. m. Consequently case No. 149 of 1978, under sections 302, 364, I. P. C, was registered. The report at that stage did not mention the names of the accused persons. It was, however, stated therein that the author of the first information report and other persons had noticed the physical features of the accused and that they could well identify them as and when shown to them. Names of some of the witnesses were also given in the first information report.

(3.) IN support of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner reliance has been placed on State of Orissa vs. Mr. Brahmananda Nanda (1) regarding the effect of late-disclosure of the name of the accused by the eye witnesses. He has also cited Balakrushna Swain vs. State of Orissa (2), Jarnail Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (3), State vs. Vijai Ram (4) and Bihari Singh Madho Singh vs. State (5) and on the basis of the ratio decidendi of these cases it has been urged that the witnesses, who do not name an accused for a pretty long time or who are not examined within a reasonable time, could not be relied upon by the prosecution to incriminate an accused in a serious crime like murder.