IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7019/2009 Sukhveer @ Sukkho vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 16.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Karanpal Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Karanpal Singh Advocate on behalf of the applicant Sukhveer @ Sukkho pertaining to F.I.R. No. 114/2009 at police station Kumher, District Bharatpur, in the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 307 of IPC as also Section 3/25 of Arms Act. Later on Sections 147, 148 and 149 of IPC were also added. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the petitioner is alleged to have been armed with club and caused injuries but later on, during investigation, the police has made recovery of fire arm at his instance. The police also recorded the statements of the witnesses, who stated that the petitioner was having a fire arm and opened fire. The main accused of this case is Pranveer, who is alleged to have opened fire on Rajendra and caused injuries to him, who has been left out and no charge-sheet has been filed against him. All the accused persons namely Maluka, Digamber and Umesh have already been enlarged on bail by the court. The petitioner is the only accused, who has been in custody for quite a long time. He is the person, who sustained ten injuries and he was brutally bashed. The complainant began the FIR with the name of the petitioner having opened the fire and caused injuries. He has been falsely implicated and thus, in view of above facts and circumstances, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused of this case. He is the person, who in fact, opened the fire and caused injuries on the person of Rajendra. Not only this, the fire arm has also been recovered from his possession, at his instance, pursuant to the information given under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Albeit, there has been schism in the statements of the complainant as also other witnesses but this appreciation is not required to be made at this stage, when we are confined to the adjudication of the bail petition. However, keeping in view the gravity of offence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Sukhveer @ Sukkho under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. 7. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is granted liberty to file bail petition afresh after recording the statements of the complainant and injured Rajendra. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- s-9