SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arvind Singh vs State on 4 September, 2018

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 8298/2018

Arvind Singh S/o Magsingh, Aged 40 Years, B/c Purohit, R/o
Parakhiya, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali
(At present lodged at Sub Jail Sumerpur)

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Bora, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Nishant Bora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, Public Prosecutor.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

Judgment / Order

04/09/2018

Undergoing trial for offence of 498A, 304B in the alternative

302 and 120B IPC in Sessions Case No.13/2017, pending before

Addl. Sessions Judge, Sumerpur, District Pali, accused-petitioner

has laid this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Aforesaid trial is founded on CR No.26/2014 PS Sanderao, District

Pali.

The first bail application of the accused-petitioner was

dismissed as not pressed on 30.05.2017 at the stage of

investigation.

Subsequently, second bail application was rejected on

12.01.2018 by a detailed order.

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8298/2018]

Pressing the instant third bail application, it is contended by

learned Sr. Counsel that after rejection of second bail application

there is substantial change in the circumstances. For highlighting

material change in the circumstances, learned Sr. Counsel has

placed heavy reliance on statements of PW2 Dr. Suresh Chandra

Bhandari. It is argued by learned Sr. Counsel that despite

conducting twin autopsy of deceased Ms. Urmila Kanwar, cause of

death was not revealed is clearly apparent from the statements of

PW2. While emphasizing some of the disclosures by witness PW2

about destruction of visceras after 90 days in the wake of its

examination after inordinate delay and absence of any visible

symptoms of poison on the dead body, learned Sr. Counsel

submits that prosecution case is full of fissures. Learned Sr.

Counsel further urged that a cumulative reading of statements of

PW2 has put the entire prosecution case under serious clouds

about Ms. Urmila Kanwar’s probable cause of death. Mr. Bora has

also relied on testimony of PW3 Shivlal and PW4 Lal Singh,

wherein both the witnesses have shown accidental injuries as

probable cause of death. Learned Sr. Counsel would urge that so

far during trial only 4-5 witnesses are examined out of 35

prosecution witnesses, therefore, early conclusion of trial is per se

not possible. Learned Sr. Counsel, therefore, submits that

considering prolonged custody of the petitioner for more than 1½

years coupled with material change in the circumstances,

petitioner may be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged

that petitioner is not entitled for bail in the backdrop of serious

criminal delinquencies.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8298/2018]

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced and thoroughly examined materials available on record

including the statements of witnesses recorded during trial.

A very significant fact that prosecution has shown different

versions about probable cause of unnatural death of Ms. Urmila

Kanwar cannot be altogether overlooked by the Court. Dilemma

of the prosecution on this vital issue, which is the very basis of

entire case, has serious visible repercussions to prima facie bring

home guilt of the accused for charged offences. Therefore,

considering the prosecution evidence so far available and the

prolonged custody of petitioner during trial, without expressing

any opinion on merits, I feel inclined to accept this third bail

application.

Accordingly, third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Arvind Singh

S/o Magsingh, arrested in connection with C.R. No.26/2014 of

Police Station Sanderao, may be released on bail; provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like

amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the

stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and

as and when called upon to do so.

(P.K. LOHRA),J

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation