Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Hadman Singh vs The State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused

the material available on record.

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in

connection with F.I.R. No.41/2017, registered at Police Station

Sheo, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 458, 323,

342, 354, 366 and 120-B IPC.

It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR.

The trial Court has enlarged on bail the co-accused persons who

were named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the abducted

girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that

during test identification proceedings, the abducted girl failed to

identify the petitioner, therefore, irrespective of the fact that some

previous cases are registered against the petitioner, he deserves

to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel

representing the complainant vehemently opposed the

submissions advanced by the petitioner''s counsel and contended

that the petitioner is named in the statement of the witness

Manohar Singh which was recorded on the very day of lodging of

the FIR. Further, the victim herself, in the test identification

proceedings has given an explanation as to why she could not

identify the petitioner as an assailant. They thus urge that the

petitioner who has significant criminal antecedents does not

deserve to be enlarged on bail.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on

record.

Manohar Singh who named the petitioner as one of the

assailants is closely related to the first informant Mag Singh. The

FIR came to lodged after nearly 16 hours of the incident and

presumably there must have been a consultation with the

witnesses before lodging of the FIR. Thus, omission of the

petitioner''s name in the FIR is a very material circumstance.

Further, the victim herself did not identify the petitioner as an

assailant in the TI parade.

In this background and having regard to the facts and

circumstances available on record but without expressing any

opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that

the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Radhey Shyam

arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.41/2017, registered at

Police Station Sheo, District Barmer shall be released on bail

provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two

surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.