IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.7136/2009
Mahendra vs. State of Rajasthan
Dated : 12.10.2009
HON’BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J.
Mr. Anil Jain, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State.
This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Anil Jain Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mahendra pertaining to F.I.R. No. 173/2008 of Police Station Sarmathura, Dholpur in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353 and 307 of IPC as also Section 11 of RDAA Act.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the co-accused Sarnam Singh has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench and the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused person. Learned counsel took me through the statements of prosecution witnesses PW-1 Bharat lal Sharma, PW-3 Manoj Kumar, PW-4 Girdhari lal, PW-5 Bachchu Singh and PW-9 Ranveer Singh and contended that nothing has emerged in their statements, so far, the petitioner is concerned. No person is found to have sustained any injury during opening the fire. The petitioner has been in custody since February, 2009 and the trial is likely to take time, hence he may be granted indulgence of bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that Mahaveer ASI, who identified all the accused persons on the spot, has yet not been examined. He is the main prosecution witness. Unless, this witness is examined, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner.
5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record including the first bail order dated 19.06.2009 rendered by this Court, it is noticed that the co-accused Mahaveer has still been in judicial custody. His bail was denied long back. The petitioner was arrested after eight months of the occurrence, as he was absconding. The prosecution witness Mahaver, who is the key witness of the case, has not been examined, hence, I, keeping in view all these factors in totality, do not find any good ground to change my earlier view, as such, the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner also deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI),J.
Mak/-
28