AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner has filed this fourth bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
F.I.R. No. 193/2017 was registered at Police Station Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur for offence under Sections 304-B of I.P.C.
It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the specific query was put to the FSL and FSL reported that the mark of ligature is ante-mortem in
nature and such as would have been caused by Chunni. It is also contended that though the Court has taken cognizance under Section 302 IPC, but
the same is under challenge before the Rajasthan High Court. It is also contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of four years.
Conclusion of Trial will take time. It is because of the stay order of High Court, that proceedings are not commencing. It is also contended that the
person who visited the spot after the incident, merely made observations. Now there is a report of two Senior Assistant Professors, which negates the
possibility of offence of murder.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the fourth bail application. It is contended that this Court has observed
that the case would fall under the category of Section 302 IPC, as the initial report is that the ligature mark could have been caused by a mobile wire.
It is also contended that there was dust on the fan which negates the theory that the deceased committed suicide. It is also contended that the earlier
bail applications were rejected by the Court. There is no change in circumstance and petitioner himself has obtained stay order for which he cannot
blame the Court for not concluding the trial.
I have considered the contentions.
There is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining the Fourth Bail. This Court had categorically observed that case would fall under
Section 302 IPC and has rejected the Bail Application. Delay, if any, is a result of the revision filed by the petitioner against the order of the
cognizance under Section 302 IPC.
Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the State and Counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to entertain the fourth bail
application.
Accordingly, Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application is dismissed.