CRLMB4099/2010 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.4099/2010 Vishal Pandit Alias Manish Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 06.07.2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Sudhir Jain, Counsel for petitioner Shri Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me during the arguments of the case. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner has been made an accused in the present case only on the allegation that he allegedly collected a bag containing firearm used in commission of crime, from Ramswaroop and delivered the same to Vikram Beniwal. There is no evidence that the petitioner was privy to the crime or otherwise involved in the conspiracy of commission of such crime. The allegation of causing murder of deceased Kapil Verma is against Sanjay Sharma for whom it is alleged that Sanjay Sharma, after making use of firearm, in question, handed over the same to Kailash Meena, who, in turn, passed on the same to Rahul @ Vinod and, who thereafter gave the same to Ramswaroop, and it is Ramswaroop from whom the petitioner is alleged to have received the firearm, which he, in turn, handed over to Vikram Beniwal. Although the bail applications of Vikram Beniwal and Rahul Mehra @ Vinod Mehra have been rejected by this Court but their case is distinguishable from that of the CRLMB4099/2010 // 2 // present accused-petitioner and rather case of the present petitioner stands on better footing because so far as Rahul Mehra is concerned there is evidence against him that he was the one who in the first instance arranged the weapon and gave the same to Sanjay Sharma before the incident and subsequently also his involvement was found therein. Regarding Vikram Beniwal, it is stated that it was at his instance that recovery of the firearm was made. However, co-accused Ramswaroop Saini has already been enlarged on bail by order of this Court dated 05.12.2009 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9861/2009. The allegation against the present accused-petitioner is exactly similar to the one against Ramswaroop Saini. The offence alleged against the present accused-petitioner is punishable under Section 201, IPC and he could be said to be peripheral accused and not the main accused. The petitioner is in jail since 03.06.2009 i.e. for last almost 13 months; trial of the case is likely to take a long; co- accused Ramswaroop Saini has already been enlarged on bail almost seven months ago. There is no other case registered against the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, but could not point out any distinction in between the cases of present accused-petitioner and that of Ramswaroop Saini @ Gon, who has already been enlarged on bail by this court. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner, namely, Vishal Pandit Alias Manish Sharma Son of Nemichand Sharma on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.309/2009, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, under Sections 302 and 120B, IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, provided he furnishes a personal CRLMB4099/2010 // 3 // bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The bail application stands disposed of. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//