Full Judgment
[1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER
S.B.CR.
MISC.
II BAIL APPLICATION No.8788/2014 (SURAJPAL SINGH & ANR.
versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order :: 14.10.2014 HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR Mr.Sudhir Saruparia, for the petitioneRs.Mr.K.K.Rawal, Public Prosecutor, for the State.
Mr.B.S.Sandhu, for the complainant.
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.122/2013, Police Station Kudi Bhagtasani, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 365, 307, 394, 341, 384 and 120-B IPC.
On 13.09.2013, the fiRs.anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by passing the following order : “The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with CR/FIR No.122/2013, Police Station Kuri Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur for the offence under Section 365, 307, 394, 384, 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners while praying for bail submitted that no role is attributed to the present petitioneRs.The main accused were those, [2].who kidnapped the complainant from the bus.
The present petitioners were simply standing by the road side near Pali.
They were neither responsible to kidnap the complainant from bus nor they accompanied the main accused nor did they participate in the beatings subsequently.
Heard.
A perusal of the FIR shows that the main accused after kidnapping the complainant met the petitioneRs.who were already waiting for them.
The connivance of the petitioners cannot be ruled out at this stage.
The allegations alleged are serious.
No ground to extend concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioneRs.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.”
.
After a lapse of one year, the present second bail application has been moved.
Interestingly, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the second bail is being filed as meanwhile the co-accused has entered into compromise and that certain documents have been obtained by him under Right to Information Act from the hospital wherein the entry of the injured has been shown as having received the injuries during the road accident.
The above facts are shocking.
The FIR has been registered under serious offences of Sections 365, 307, 394, 384 and 120-B IPC.
The fiRs.bail application was dismissed [3].more than one year ago on 13.09.2013.
The petitioners have avoided their arrest till date leaving enough scope to win over the witnesses including the complainant to enter into the alleged compromise as stated above.
Instead of surrendering, the second anticipatory bail application has been filed on fliMs.grounds.
Even the question of compromise appears to be doubtful because the learned counsel for the complainant is present in the Court to oppose the bail.
On one side, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the compromise has been entered into by the complainant with the co-accused and not with the present petitioners and on the other side taking advantage of the said compromise by citing it as a fresh ground to file the second anticipatory bail.
The antecedents of the petitioners is evident from the fact that there are 13 other cases registered against them.
It appears that the petitioners and the co-accused are not only absconding but tempering with the evidence also.
Nothing more needs to be said on the shocking state of affaiRs.Dismissed accordingly.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR).J.
Anil/63