SAXENA, J. - (1.) - Heard. Perused the challan papers and other relevant record.
(2.) MR. Kharlia has vehemently contended that though the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh Camp Suratgarh has framed charge for the offences u/ss. 304-B and 498 IPC against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, still then there are new circumstances calling-for the grant of bail to the present petitioner. Firstly, after the petitioner's second bail application was rejected, principal accused Smt. Rukmani has been granted bail by this Court vide its order dated 6. 1. 94 passed in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1873/93 and secondly, in the dying declarations dated 14. 3. 93 and 16. 3. 93, deceased Smt. Janak did not implicate the petitioner at all and that Rajendra Taneja maternal uncle of the deceased in his statement dated 15. 1. 93 recorded by the Delhi Police also did not implicate the petitioner, but after the death of deceased Smt. Janak, in his subsequent statement dated 18/3/93, he has tried to implicate the petitioner, but the other witnesses do not corroborate him. According to MR. Kharlia, Rajendra Taneja has improved his previous statement and has tried to falsely implicate the petitioner. He has also relied on the cases of Shobha Ram vs. State of U. P. (1) and Nanha vs. State of U. P. (2), wherein it has been held that on the ground of desirability of consistency and equity, if an accused person whose case is identically similar has been released on bail, then co-accused is also entitled to be released. Mrs. Chandralekha, learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed this third bail application. She has contended that the trial Court has already fixed 3. 03. 1993 for recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that a direction may be issued to the learned trial Judge to First examine witnesses Rajendra Taneja and Shyam Sunder. Mr. M. K. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, has asserted that though Smt. Rukmani was one of the principal accused, but she has been released on bail on the ground that she is a lady suffering from an ailment. He has further submitted that petitioner's two bail applications were dismissed on merits therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. This is an admitted position that Smt. Rukmani, who was the mother-in-law of deceased Smt. Janak and against whom, there were consistent two dying declarations of the deceased Smt. Janak to the effect that she alongwith co-accused Smt. Bhago, deceased's sister-in-law (Jethani) had poured kerosene oil on her and set her to fire, has been released by this Court vide its order dt. 6. 1. 94. Of-course, while granting her bail, one of the consideration was that she was an old and infirm lady. But this is a new circumstance.
(3.) DECEASED Smt. Janak in her dying declarations dt. 14. 3. 93 and thereafter on 16. 3. 93, which were recorded by two different S. D. Ms, at Suratgarh and Delhi, did not attribute any overt act to the petitioner. On the other hand, she stated that at the time Rukmani & Bhago set her to fire, petitioner was not present & that subsequently he tried to save her. The petitioner also received burn injuries on his person. It is only in the subsequent statement of Rajendra Taneja dated 18/3/93 and the statement of Shyam Sunder dated 20/3/93 recorded under sec. 161 Cr. P. C, it has been disclosed that deceased Smt. Janak did not call anything against her husband, petitioner Prem Kumar keeping in view the welfare of her daughter Anu, aged, about one and a half years. On the other hand, Smt. Ishwari Devi, mother of the deceased, in her statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr. P. C. has stated that she was present in Suratgarh hospital and that Smt. Janak had not complained or attributed any overt act against the petitioner Prem Kumar. Co-accused Smt. Bhago, who was the sister-in-law of deceased Smt. Janak (Jethani) has also been released on bail by this Court. The allegations against the petitioner are not that he had set fire to his wife Smt. Janak. The petitioner is under detention since 20. 4. 93 and the trial of this case is likely to take considerable time. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case as also the desirability of the judicial consistency but without commenting on merits, I allow this petition and order that petitioner Prem Kumar be released on bail provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10000/- together with two sound & substantial sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Hanumangarh, Camp Suratgarh for his personal appearance before that Court in Sessions Case No36 of 1993 on each & every date of hearing till the completion of the trial. . ;