- (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available during course of arguments. These are three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner Kalu Ram Vishnoi, while in First two cases, allegation against him is of committing offence under Sections 304, 328 IPC and 54B of the Rajasthan Excise Act, in third case allegation against him is of committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.
(2.) Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel argued that in third case, it is alleged that certain packaging material of genuine brands of liquor, to show illicit liquor as genuine, were recovered at the instance of petitioner. It was argued that alleged offences are under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, which are all tribal by the Court of 1st Class Magistrate, Shri N.K. Bohra, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that the statement of Station House Officer, Basni recorded in some other FIR No. 33/2011 of the same police station, has been used in the first two cases for registering FIR against the petitioner and others for offences under Sections 304 and 328 IPC read with Section 54 of the Excise Act and Sections 201 and 120B IPC respectively. The aforesaid statement contains admission of co-accused Raju Ram in the shape of information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act according to which, his role and that of co-accused Haulal is similar to that of accused-petitioner, who have already been enlarged on bail by this court. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case investigation started on the basis of statement of one Rajesh, who stated that he and his partners Manoj and Prafulla purchased contraband liquor from one Kishan Maharaj, Sharifa and one fat lady, who was identified as Basanti. Consumption of the liquor led to unfortunate deaths of certain persons. All three of them have been extended benefit of bail. Petitioner ought to be therefore extended benefit of bail on the ground of parity.
(3.) It is also argued that in the present matter, on the basis of same statement of S.H.O., six different cases were registered for various offences to make the offence much graver. Co-accused Haulal and Pappu also had almost similar number of previously registered cases against them, Even if all 22 deaths have taken place on account of consumption of illicit liquor, only one case should have been registered. As regards the previous 12 criminal cases registered against the accused-petitioner, learned counsel submitted that antecedents alone cannot be a reason to decline the benefit of bail especially when co-accused Haulal, whose role is much graver, has been granted bail. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu-, 2011 4 RCR(Cri) 21. Learned counsel also cited judgment of the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and Another, 2012 1 RCR(Cri) 586, to argue that role of the accused has to be seen in the light of the evidence in the present case and bail cannot be denied only on account of antecedents of the accused.;