Dhanna Ram vs State on 25 February, 2010

                                     1

35

       S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLN. NO. 1146/2010.
             Dhanna Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan


     Date of Order :: 25th February 2010.


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

     Mr. S.D.Goswami, for the petitioner.
     Mr. A.R. Nikub, Public Prosecutor.
                                   ...

     BY THE COURT:

The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 363,

366, 376 IPC, has moved this third application for bail under

Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The first application for bail (No. 2534/2009) as moved

by the petitioner was rejected on 08.07.2009 as not pressed.

After examination of the prosecutrix, the petitioner moved the

second application for bail (No. 6022/2009) that was

considered and rejected on 24.11.2009 as not pressed at the

given stage.

After rejection of the second bail application, in the trial,

the witness PW-13 Medical Officer concerned was examined.

The petitioner thereafter moved another bail application to the

learned Trial Court that came to be rejected on 01.02.2010,

inter alia, with the observations that the trial was almost

complete and only the Investigating Officer was to be

examined.

2

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has

strenuously attempted to argue that the prosecutrix has not

supported the prosecution case and even the other

independent witnesses also have not supported the

prosecution case and there is no likelihood of the petitioner

being convicted but it is noticed that so far the prosecution

evidence is concerned, 12 witnesses had already been

examined when the second bail application was considered by

this Court and the same was dismissed as not pressed.

Thereafter, only the Medical Officer PW-13 has been

examined and having gone through his statements coupled

with the statements hitherto recorded, this Court is unable to

find any justification so as to grant indulgence in this third bail

application to the petitioner.

In the circumstances of the case, this third bail

application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the

petitioner Dhanna Ram S/o Madan Lal stands rejected.

However, having regard to the overall facts and

circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate and

hence observed that if the petitioner makes a request to the

learned Trial Court for expeditious proceedings and for

conclusion of the trial at the earliest, the same be given due

consideration in accordance with law.

(DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.

//Mohan//