Bahadur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Dinesh Mehta, J

This second application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.68/2016, registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under Sections 302/34, 364/34, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant invited Court’s attention towards the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements of relevant witnesses and submitted that neither in the charge-sheet nor in the testimony of the witnesses so far recorded, any substantial evidence or material has emerged, on the basis of which, it can be said that the applicant was involved in the crime alleged against him.

Learned counsel submitted that co-accused – Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court per-viam order dated 20.05.2019 while the applicant is behind the bars since 13.02.2017.

While pointing out that the applicant is languishing in jail for last 6 years and 6 months, Mr. Shah submitted that in totality of the circumstances as indicated above, the applicant’s rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India deserve protection and prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by inviting Court’s attention towards the criminal antecedents of the applicant and submitted that as many as 30 cases are pending against him.

Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that in case of an accused having criminal antecedents such as in the present case, the merit of accusation and chances or probability of conviction should take a backseat.

It was submitted that the criminal antecedents and background of an accused are relevant factors to be reckoned while deciding bail application and the Court should weigh the societal impact consequent to release of such an accused vis-a-vis right to life of an accused.

He argued that the applicant, who is involved in all sorts of offences, including one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code be not enlarged on bail, as the possibility of he being indulged in criminal activities or fleeing is imminent.

In relation to applicant’s argument that the co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail, learned Senior Counsel submitted that parity cannot be claimed by the present applicant from the case of said Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh, in the face of his criminal antecedents.

Learned Senior Counsel placed for perusal of the Court, the following judgments:-

(1) Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2016) 15 SCC 422.

(2) Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh Alias Lalla Babu, reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446

(3) State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21

(4) Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr., reported in (2022) 4 SCC 497

(5) Order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Apex Court in Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP No.4633/2021).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material so also the judgments cited at Bar.

After going through the material on record and judicial precedents cited at Bar, this Court finds that the case in hand is a case different than the usual cases, wherein the applicant is accused of felony of committing murder; as many as 30 cases are pending against him, including the present case and one more of such nature and co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

In the present factual backdrop, this Court is not persuaded to accept present application for bail simply because the co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail. The large number of cases pending against the petitioner is reflective or indicator of he being a prospective threat to the society.

In the case like the one, which this Court is seized of, the liberal approach in granting bail cannot be applied. Applicant’s personal liberty cannot be given precedence over the need of protection of society from criminals.

Adverting to the merit of the case, which cannot be overlooked simply because the applicant has a criminal track record, this Court is of prima-facie opinion that chances of charges against the applicant being brought home are bleak for want of direct evidence or necessary material. No recovery has been made from the present applicant and there is absence of circumstantial evidence. Hence, it cannot be said with certitude that the prosecution will be able to establish the charge leveled against the applicant.

The important aspect that the applicant is facing incarceration for more than 6 years cannot be lost sight of.

True it is, that 30 cases which are pending against the applicant tend to be stumbling block in his way of getting bail, but applicant’s constitutional rights cannot be altogether ignored. He has remained behind bars for 6 years and 6 months essentially because of his past conduct. He is facing long drawn trial in which a list of 37 witnesses has been given by the prosecution.

The fact that out of total 30 cases, the applicant has been acquitted in 19 cases persuades this Court to grant him benefit of bail, because pending of multiple cases will lead to protraction of the trial of the present case as his presence would be required in all the criminal cases in which he is facing trial.

This Court is, therefore, of the view that keeping the applicant incarcerated till indefinite period would be against the settled canons of law.

In light of the facts noticed above and being guided by the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Hence, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.68/2016, registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under Sections 302/34, 364/34, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Having regard to the applicant’s past conduct and antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a condition for enlargement - the applicant will have to appear before the SHO, Salasar on 1st and 15th of every month at 04:00 pm till completion of trial of present case. Applicant shall also be required to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.