1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1130/2019
registered at Police Station Mansarover, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 307 & 452 of IPC and 3 & 25 of the Arms Act and later
on for the offences under Sections 307, 386, 450 & 120-B of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR is against unknown person. He submitted that the incident is dated 23.10.2019;
whereas, recovery of the weapon of offence allegedly at his instance has been shown from rented premises at Gurugram on 24.10.2019. He
submitted that in the entire charge- sheet, no statement of the landlord has been recorded nor, the seizure memo shows his signature as a witness. He
submitted that thereafter, his arrest has been shown from Jaipur on 25.11.2019 rendering the prosecution story to be improbable. He submitted that the
petitioner is in custody for last about one year, co- accused persons have been extended benefit of bail by the learned Sessions Court itself, trial of the
case will take time and prays for his release on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submitted that there is grave allegation against the petitioner of injuring mother of the
complainant with gun fire and the weapon of offence has been recovered on the information furnished by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. He submitted that the petitioner has been identified in the test identification parade by the injured. He submitted that there are 11 other
criminal cases registered against the petitioner out of which some cases involve offences of serious nature. He submitted that in these circumstances,
case of the petitioner cannot be treated at parity with the cases of co-accused persons who have been extended benefit of bail by learned Sessions
Court and the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.
4. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of allegation against the
petitioner, the material available in the case diary and especially the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which involve offences of similar nature as
well as other heinous offences; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. The bail application is dismissed accordingly.
