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)
