High CourtsSingle Bench

Raju Singh @ Rajender vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 8 December 2023 · Citation: (2023) 12 RAJ CK 0027

HON’BLE JUDGES
Farjand Ali, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1651 Of 2023
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

26 paragraphs · 400 words

Farjand Ali, J

1.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.

Particulars of the Case

1

FIR Number

190/1999

2

Concerned Police Station

Guluwala

3

District

Hanumangarh

4

Offences alleged in the FIR

302, 364, 392, 201 & 34 of IPC

5

Offences added, if any

6

Particulars of the Case

18.01.2023

2.

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3.

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4.

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and I have perused the material available on record and challan papers and the other evidence recorded during trial.

5.

Admittedly, the eye witness on account of the witness is not available and the entire case of the prosecution basing upon the so called last seen theory for which two witnesses PW-3 Jagdish and PW-4 Om Prakash were produced, however, both have not supported the story as set out by the prosecution. Besides this nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner. In my considered opinion the further incarceration of the petitioner would not be required. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

6.

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.