AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Karja PS Case No. 20 of 2007 dated 29.03.2007 instituted under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.
The petitioner, though not named in the FIR, is accused of killing the deceased, who was the driver of a Truck of which the petitioner was the khaliasi (helper).
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was against unknown and the informant had expressed apprehension that it was the owner of the Truck Balwant Singh, who had certain dues to pay to her husband and had taken him to work on the pretext that he would pay him and asking the deceased to work for him and later on 31.03.2007 had informed the informant that the deceased had died due to collusion of Truck, which was incorrect. It was submitted that the petitioner was never made an accused for many years and only on the statement of one Vijay Singh and the owner of the Truck Balwant Singh, he has been made accused. It was further submitted that after nearly 10 years in the year 2007 warrant of arrest has been issued against him. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to order dated 07.09.2017 passed by a co-ordinate Bench by which Balendra Singh, who has also been made an accused has been granted anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 25622 of 2017.
Learned APP submitted that the petitioner was the khalasi and if the relief has been granted to his brother-in-law, the same has no bearing on the present case, for the brother-in-law had no direct nexus with the deceased as he was neither on the Truck nor the khalasi. Learned counsel submitted that the fact that the petitioner was on the Truck for almost two weeks with the deceased in the capacity of khalasi and the deceased having died with multiple wounds on his neck, against the petitioner there is strong circumstantial evidence which does not entitle him to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.