Dileep Nath vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023 registered at Police Station Nai, Dist. Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 115, 302, 143 and 120-B of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and there is no evidence of previous animosity between the petitioner and the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that co-accused persons namely Yashpal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1894/2024 vide order dated 15.03.2024), Rakesh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1895/2024 vide order dated 15.03.2024), Jitendra @ Anna (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1896/2024 vide order dated 15.03.2024) and Bharat Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 820/2024 vide order dated 28.02.2024) have been enlarged on bail by this Court. The order dated 28.02.2024 passed by this Court while deciding the application preferred by the co- accused Bharat Singh is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“ This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023, registered at Police Station Nai, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 115, 302, 143 and 120B IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; the petitioner has not named in the FIR; there is no evidence of previous animosity between the petitioner and the complainant.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the statements of one Vinod Teli under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded in which he stated that he had eavesdropped & found that the accused persons were making a plan to murder the complainant.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of Vinod Teli are not trustworthy because it is highly improbable that the accused persons will make a plan to murder the complainant in front of so many people, sitting at a tea stall.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no specific allegation or overt act at the instance of the petitioner has been alleged in the charge-sheet; the present petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.08.2023; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case as an accused solely on the basis of suspicion; the petitioner has not named in the FIR; no specific allegation or overt act of the petitioner has been alleged in the charge-sheet. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Bharat Singh S/o Madho Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023, registered at Police Station Nai, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail by this Court; no recovery has been made from the present petitioner; the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail; the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the suspicion; no specific allegation or overt act of the petitioner has been alleged in the charge-sheet; no recovery has been affected or due to be affected from the present petitioner. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dileep Nath S/o Sh Narayan Nath arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023 registered at Police Station Nai, Dist. Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.