Girdhari Ram vs State Of Rajasthan

Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR No.247/2018 registered at Police Station Chouhtan, District Barmer for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 325, 302, & 307/149 IPC. At present he is facing trial for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No.11/2017, pending before Additional District & Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer.

The first bail application on behalf of petitioner was dismissed as not pressed on 24.10.2017 with liberty to renew the prayer afresh after recording statements of injured eye-witnesses.

Arguing on this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after rejection of first bail application there is substantial change in the circumstances. Elaborating the substantial change in the circumstances, learned counsel has referred to the statements of injured eye-witnesses PW5-Dharmendra and PW7-Raju Ram. The witness, PW5-Dharmendra, has although attributed specific role to the petitioner in his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of inflicting head injury to deceased but during his deposition before the Court, he has projected a different version. In his Court statements, as per the version of the witness, his mother-deceased, was inflicted head injury by Purkha Ram and he has not assigned specific role of petitioner in scuffle inasmuch his statements in this behalf are omnibus. While referring to the statements of PW7-Raju Ram, it is argued by learned counsel that he has completely changed his stand from his police statements by assigning specific role to Purkha Ram in inflicting serious injuries to the deceased. By highlighting the statements of these two witnesses, it is submitted by learned counsel that, prima facie, the prosecution story about specific role of petitioner in commission of serious offence under Section 302 IPC is not free from doubt and suspicion. It is also submitted by learned counsel that out of 28 witnesses, only 7 have been examined so far and the petitioner is in custody since November, 2016, therefore, considering this material change in the circumstances, his bail plea deserves favourable consideration.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application of petitioner.

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar.

Upon perusal of the material available on record, more particularly, the statements of two injured eye-witnesses, viz., PW5-Dharmendra and PW7-Raju Ram, in my opinion, the prosecution case, as set up in the charge-sheet, has completely changed and the role attributed to the petitioner in commission of heinous offence has created reasonable suspicion.

Be that as it may, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, in the backdrop of this substantial change in the circumstances, I feel persuaded to accept this second bail application of petitioner.

Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Girdhari Ram S/o Sh. Chima Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. 247/2018 of Police Station Chouhtan, District Barmer, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.