Kaluram vs State Of Rajasthan

Dinesh Mehta, J

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.323/2023, registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Mr. Udawat, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the case of the present applicant is akin to that of the case of the co-accused, namely, Sharwan and Virendra, who are enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2024 in S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16244/2023.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that location of the applicant was found in village Sardarpura and that an iron rod has been recovered from him.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

On perusal of the record, this Court finds that the case of the applicant is not different than the cases of co-accused (Sharwan and Virendra).

So far as recovery of iron rod is concerned, the FSL is inconclusive about the blood group, though the blood stain was found on the iron rod.

So far as the location of the applicant at village Sardarpura is concerned, while dealing with bail application of co-accused, namely, Sharwan and Virendra vide order dated 09.01.2024, this Court has discussed the record and analyzed the fact and statement in detail as thus:-

"13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record, including the statements as flagged by learned counsel for the parties.

Without making observations about the manner in which the prosecution has proceeded and the charge-sheet has been filed, suffice it to highlight that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of wife of the deceased nor in the statement of the complainant and even in the statement of father of the deceased, names of the present applicants have been given, though names of other 8-10 persons have been given.

It is also to be noted that said Mahendra Kumar was injured around 2:30 pm on 31.08.2023 and he breathed his last on 03.09.2023 at 6:30 pm. In spite of the fact that the Investigating Officer had 72 hours time available with him, he has not tried to record statement of the deceased. It is rather surprising that if the deceased was able to apprise three persons about the incident and give the names of the persons who have inflicted injuries, why the Investigating Officer did not bother to record his statement.

Names of the present applicants have been referred by one Om Nath, who is not an eye witness to the incident. And curiously enough, he takes the names of the present applicants on the basis of the so called information given by the deceased (Mahendra Kumar).

This Court finds it difficult to believe that when the deceased Mahendra Kumar did not disclose the names of the applicants to his wife, brother and father, why would he name present applicants while narrating the incident to a third person.

The only evidence, which the prosecution has brought on record is the call location of the applicant No.1 Sharwan. It is pertinent to note that the incident occurred between 2:00 pm to 2:30 pm in village Sardarpura, whereas, as per the location analysis, the location of the applicant was in the village Sardarpura between 13:35 pm to 14:06 pm, whereafter his location is found in village Khariyaneev at 14:31 pm.

As informed by learned Public Prosecutor, village Kharyaneev is about 20 km away from the village Sardarpua. Hence, presence of applicant Sharwan in village Sardarpura at the time of commission of offence is highly improbable.

Then comes the recovery of Lathi from the present applicant. Needless to observe that the recovery of purported weapon of offence has been made while the applicants were in police custody. Solely on the basis of such recovery, in prima-facie opinion of this Court, the applicants cannot be kept behind the bars till indefinite period, when there is no other incriminating evidence.

So far as applicant No.2 Virendra @ Vakil is concerned, even his call location and call details record does not show his presence in the village Sardarpura. He has been indicted only on the basis of recovery of Lathi.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application of both the applicants, who are behind bars since 09.09.2023/11.09.2023."

Following the reasoning given in the case of co-accused Sharwan and Virendra, the present bail application is also allowed.

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Kaluram S/o Amraram arrested in connection with FIR No.323/2023, registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Applicant shall be required to appear before that 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.