Bacchu @ Bahadur vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Challan papers.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that neither the Petitioner has been named in the FIR filed by the husband of the prosecutrix, nor he has been named in the statements recorded u/s 161 Code of Criminal Procedure More so, after the arrest of the Petitioner he was subjected to test identification by the prosecutrix, however, she failed to identify him. That apart, there is no evidence to connect the Petitioner with the alleged crime.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances and looking to the fact that the Petitioner has not been identified by the prosecutrix in the identification parade, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the accused Applicant, and the present bail application preferred by the Applicant u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure deserves acceptance.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed, it is directed that Applicant Bacchu @ Bahadur S/o Karmaji Banjara, shall be released on bail in FIR No. 226/2011 at P.S. Pratap Nagar, District Bhilwara provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.