BALDEV SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of bail granted by the learned Court below on 11. 2. 2008. It is the said order of bail passed in favour of the accused non-petitioner No. 2 Devi Ram, is under challenge in this application for cancellation of bail, under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C.

(2.) BROAD facts of the case are that a report came to be lodged in the year 2006. Thereafter, the investigation commenced and the challan came to be filed against Kishori Shyam and Gopal. The Investigating Agency was of the view that no case was made out against Devi Ram Meena and Prem Sukh.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the undisputed facts are that initially, a report was lodged against the accused persons including the non-petitioner No. 2; the Investigating Agency came to the conclusion that no case is made out against the respondent No. 2 and therefore, the challan was not filed against him. It was only after recording of the statements of some of the prosecution witnesses during trial that cognizance was taken against the respondent No. 2 on the application filed under Section 319 Cr. P. C. and issued non- bailable warrant. The learned trial Court in the impugned order had taken into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case and had also, after giving other reasons, granted bail to the respondent No. 2 Devi Ram. In my considered opinion, once the discretion has been exercised by the Court below, particularly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it would not be just and proper for this Court to interfere with the order impugned, in exercise of the powers under section 439 (2) Cr. P. C.