High CourtsSingle Bench(2022) 11 RAJ CK 0141

Narsinath vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 28 November 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15102 Of 2022

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 429 words

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.18/2020, Police Station Role, District Nagaur for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the first bail application on 09.11.2020, the statement of the first informant Omnath has been recorded before the trial court as P.W.2. He submits that as per the statement of P.W.2 Omnath, the affair of the petitioner-Narsinath and Triloknath with Manisha @ Baya (wife of the deceased) was known to him one month prior to the date of first information, however, the same does not find mention in the first report given by the informant to the police.

Learned counsel further submits that in the statement of P.W.2, it has come on record that Triloknath and petitioner - Narsinath both were having affair with Manisha @ Baya (wife of the deceased), however, Triloknath has not been charge-sheeted in the present case. Even as per the statement of Prakashnath and Kamalnath recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it has come on record that the deceased Dhanna Nath offered liquor to petitioner - Narsinath and the same was consumed by all three of them. He also submits that there is no evidence on record which shows that any injury was caused to the deceased and even as per the post-mortem report, no injury has been reported on the body of deceased Dhanna Nath and the cause of death has been shown only as ‘drowning’. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the present second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Narsinath S/o Panchunath arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.18/2020, Police Station Role, District Nagaur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.