Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Devi Singh S/O Madan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:21342) on 21 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:21342]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
2551/2025
Devi Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Bhagwatipura, Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar (Raj.).
(At Present Confined At Sub District Jail Bhawani Mandi District
Jhalawar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
21/05/2025
1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483
of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.52/2022 registered at Police Station
Mishroli, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 & 302 of IPC. After
completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
323, 307, 302 & 435 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of Arms Act,
1959 (Amendment 2019).
2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn by this court vide order dated 31.08.2023 while giving
liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording
the testimony of material witnesses. Now, some of the material
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 10:00:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21342] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2551/2025]
witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this
second bail application has been preferred.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.
Counsel submits that two material witnesses namely- Suresh Yogi
and Bharat Singh have been examined during the course of trial
as PW-9 & PW-10, respectively, wherein they have not supported
the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is
contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It
is submitted that petitioner has suffered incarceration of about
three years as he is in custody since 09.05.2022 and further
custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
the bail application. He submits that witness namely- Gopal Singh
who was present at the place of incident has clearly stated that
petitioner caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased and
according to the post-mortem report, cause of death is firearm
injury. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as
apart from this, eight other cases have been registered against
him.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been acquitted in three cases.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the
parties, especially considering the role attributed to the petitioner,
material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet
including testimony of the witnesses recorded so far, as also
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 10:00:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:21342] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2551/2025]
considering the fact that according to the post-mortem report,
cause of death is firearm injury and petitioner is a habitual
offender thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do
not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed.
8. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of
the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the
trial of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /76
(Downloaded on 22/05/2025 at 10:00:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link