1 (1) S.B. Crl. Misc. Third Bail Application No. 3878/2010. Anand @ Pintu & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan ... (2) S.B. Crl. Misc. Third Bail Application No. 5340/2010. Surendra Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan .... Date of Order :: 5th August 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. P.K. Mathur, for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 3878/2010. Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 5340/2010. Mr. O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the complainant. <<>> These two bail applications being related to the same FIR have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The petitioners in these bail applications are accused of offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 327, 427, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act in Sessions Case No.40/2009 as taken up in relation to FIR No.11/2009 Police Station, Bajju, District Bikaner. The FIR aforesaid was lodged by the complainant Shyam Singh essentially on the allegations that he was having ancestral land at Bhurasar and Magnewala that was sought to be taken over in possession by Mahaveer Singh Shekhawat and others; and there had been enmity between them and two days before the date of incident, such persons, Mahaveer Singh and others, attempted to take over possession of the land whereupon he reached the site but 2 Mahaveer Singh threatened and turned him away; and that a telephonic information was made to the C.O., Khajuwala and ASP, Bikaner (Rural). The complainant alleged that on 23.01.2009 at about 5-5:30 p.m., while himself, his brother, father, Prathvi Singh and Balveer Singh were in the house, several persons as named in the FIR came to the house in vehicles, armed with gun, pistols, barchhi and iron rods; they surrounded the house and damaged the vehicles parked in front of the house; and then, Mahaveer Singh fired from his gun that hit Prathvi Singh who fell down unconscious; and other accused persons fired from their pistols. According to the complainant, the concerned police officers with constables of RAC came in action and thereupon Mahaveer Singh and others fled in their vehicles. It was pointed out that the injured Prathvi Singh was taken to Bajju Hospital and then was referred to PBM Hospital, Bikaner where he expired due to injuries. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and at present the matter remains pending in trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1 Bikaner where the petitioners in these bail applications are being tried alongwith other accused persons. The petitioners and 8 other accused persons earlier filed different bail applications that were considered and decided together by this Court on 13.07.2009. It had been the common ground therein that the principal accusation of causing fatal injury was against the accused Mahaveer Singh; and that it was a matter of exaggeration and over-implication 3 because of long existing mining area dispute between the parties. It was submitted in relation to the petitioner Anand @ Pintu that some sort of iron rods had allegedly been recovered from him; and the material on record would not make out accusation against him beyond Section 427 IPC. It was submitted in relation to the petitioner Surendra Singh that even when he was alleged to have reached the spot armed with pistol, and recovery of fire-arm had been alleged, he cannot be connected with the offence under Section 302 IPC in this case. It was also submitted that some of the co-accused persons had already been enlarged on bail by different orders passed by this Court. The said bail applications were put to opposition by the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the complainant. It was submitted that the material on record clearly established the complicity of the petitioners and the co-accused when they were the members of the same unlawful assembly that attacked after reaching the house of the complainant party in several vehicles while being armed with deadly weapons; opened fire and killed Prithvi Singh; ran away while shooting indiscriminately; caused damage to the property; and indulged in rioting with weapons. It was also pointed out that the antecedents of the most of the petitioners were seriously questionable who had been involved in multiple criminal cases in the past. 4 After considering the submissions and the challan papers, this Court proceeded to grant bail to 7 of such accused-petitioners but the bail applications as moved on behalf of the present petitioners and another accused Nuran Khan were declined looking at the nature of accusation and then the facts about antecedents of these accused persons who were said to be involved in the past in other criminal cases. It was noticed that the petitioner Surendra Singh was involved in two cases and one of them had been for offence under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. It was noticed in relation to the petitioner Anand @ Pintu that he was involved in one criminal case pertaining to offence under Section 394 IPC. These petitioners also moved second bail application No.5511/2009 that was dismissed by this Court on 04.12.2009 finding no material change of circumstances. The petitioners have now moved these third bail applications and it is submitted that the principal accused Mahaveer singh has since been ordered to be enlarged on bail by this Court while allowing his second bail application No.2313/2010 on 12.04.2010. It is also submitted that the trial gets prolonged in this matter with several of the witnesses avoiding service of warrants issued for their presence; and the certified copies of the warrants as issued by the Trial Court in relation to witnesses Ashok Kumar and Shyam Singh have particularly been referred wherein the process servers have reported on audacity and avoidance on the part of witness. It is also submitted that after the order dated 13.07.2009, in the 5 appeals as moved, the Hon'ble Supreme Court though declined bail but with liberty to the accused to apply for bail afresh to the High Court. It is submitted that the petitioners are in custody for over 1½ year and no useful purpose would be served with their further detention. The learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail applications. It is also pointed out by the counsel for the complainant that the order dated 12.04.2010 as passed in relation to the accused Mahaveer Singh has been questioned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in petition for Special Leave to Appeal wherein notices were ordered to be issued on 10.05.2010. This Court would not be making any comments on the merits of the case but after having considered all the subsequent events together including the fact that principal accused Mahaveer Singh at present stands enlarged on bail; and then, looking to the reports as made in relation to the witnesses aforesaid and looking to the nature of accusation against the present petitioners, this Court is of opinion that no useful purpose would be served with their further detention in this case despite pendency of some cases against them as noticed supra and despite pendency of the appeal in relation to the bail granted to the principal accused. Looking to the over all facts and circumstances it is considered just and proper to enlarge the petitioners Anand @ Pintu and Surendra Singh on bail but with the observations that if they would be found involved in any other criminal case, it shall be permissible for the prosecution to seek cancellation 6 of bail being granted herein. This stipulation shall distinctly be stated in the bail bonds to be furnished by the petitioners. Accordingly, these bail applications under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed with the requirements aforesaid and it is directed that the petitioner Anand @ Pintu son of Radheshyam (Third Bail Application No. 3878/2010) and the petitioner Surendra Singh son of Ran Singh (Third Bail Application No. 5340/2010) be released on bail in relation to FIR No.11/2009, Police Station Bajju, District Bikaner provided each of them executes the requisite personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.5,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the completion of trial. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK 7 S.B. Crl. Misc. Third Bail Application No. 5340/2010. Surendra Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 5th August 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Dr. Sachin Acharya, for the petitioner in Bail Application No. 5340/2010. Mr. O.P. Singaria, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Trilok Joshi, for the complainant. <<>> This third bail application stands allowed vide common order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 3878/2010 (Anand @ Pintu Vs. The State of Rajasthan). By Order, COURT MASTER MK