High CourtsSingle Bench

Prem Sagar vs State

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 28 January 2020 · Citation: (2020) 01 RAJ CK 0238

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 201, 302, 379, 380 · Information Technology Act, 2000 — Section 66, 66B · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14463 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 451 words

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.110/2017 of Police Station Naal, Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 379, 380, 120-B of IPC and Sections 66 and 66-B of IT Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner, statements of as many as three witnesses namely Rajkumari, Lokesh and Nilesh have been recorded before the trial court as PW-1 to PW-3 It is submitted that PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and PW-2 and PW-3 are brothers of the deceased. It is submitted that in the evidence of those witnesses, they have not made any allegations against the petitioner. It is also submitted that even in the post-mortem report, it is clearly mentioned that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were post-mortem and not ante mortem in nature. It is submitted that the FSL report suggests that viscera and blood samples collected by the police gave positive test for the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and Organophosphorous Insecticide in the body of the deceased. It is submitted that from the above evidence, it is clear that there is no direct evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime and he is being implicated in this case simply on the basis of some circumstantial evidence collected by the police to suggests that the ATM card of the deceased was allegedly used by the petitioner for drawing money but the said evidence is not conclusive proof regarding involvement of the petitioner in the commission of crime.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 as well as the FSL report, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Prem Sagar S/o Bal Kishan Chhangani shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.110/2017 of Police Station Naal, Bikaner provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.