Rakesh vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 460, 302/34, 380/34 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused person namely Arjun has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.03.2024 in Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.800/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail. The order dated 15.03.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, for offences under Sections 460, 302, 380 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution story, the deceased – Heera Lal was killed by some unidentified persons in the night of 13.2.2022. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation into the matter, arrested the present petitioner and the co -accused Rakesh for commission of the alleged crime.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of material witnesses of the case viz. Madan Singh (PW-10) and Smt. Thawari (PW-9) recorded before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence available on record indicating involvement of the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.There is no eye-witness of the incident and the material witnesses of the case viz. Madan Singh (PW-10) and Smt. Thawari (PW-9) have not disclosed any circumstance on the basis of which, it could be inferred that the petitioner had any role in killing the deceased – Heera Lal. Learned counsel submitted that since the case against the present petitioner hinges solely on circumstantial evidence only, the prosecution is required to prima facie prove a complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking the petitioner with the alleged crime.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that as per prosecution, an axe and scissors allegedly used in commission of the alleged crime have been recovered at the instance of co-accused Rakesh. Further, there is no evidence of motive against the present petitioner.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

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

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case so also the statements of Madan Singh (PW -10) and Smt. Thawari (PW-9) recorded before the competent criminal court, this Court prima facie finds that Thawari (PW-9) during her court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. This Court also prima facie finds that the court statements of the witness Madan Singh (PW- 10) are not sufficient to establish the presence of the petitioner at the crime scene or that soon before the incident he was in the company of the co-accused Rakesh or the deceased – Heera Lal. The sharp weapons allegedly used in commission of the alleged crime have been recovered at the instance of co-accused Rakesh. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, a perusal of the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements of the prosecution witnesses do not suggest that the circumstantial evidence available against the petitioner is of definitive character; there is no evidence of motive against the petitioner. This Court is thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Arjun S/o Nanu Lal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara, 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 so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the case of the petitioner is not worse than that of the co-accused- Arjun, therefore, the petitioner also deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no eye- witness of the alleged incident and the case against the present petitioner hinges solely on circumstantial evidence. Further, there is no proof of motive against the present petitioner. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that above named co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, Court prima facie finds that Thawari (PW-9) during her court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. This Court also prima facie finds that the court statements of the witness Madan Singh (PW-10) are not sufficient to establish the presence of the petitioner at the crime scene. This Court also prima facie that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Arjun, who has already been enlarged on bail. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 21.03.2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time.This court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rakesh S/o Ieemji arrested in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Kalinjara, District Banswara shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.