IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Court deciding bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of case such as allegations made against accused and severity of punishment if allegations are proved beyond reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

NAGARATHNA, J.

This appeal has been preferred by the informant-appellant assailing Order dated 7th May, 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan, at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3601/2020, whereby bail has been granted to the accused who is the second respondent in the instant appeal, in connection with FIR No. 407/2019 Police Station Kalwar.

2. According to the appellant, he is the son of the deceased, Ram Swaroop Khokhar and is the person who lodged the First Information Report being FIR No. 407/2019 on 8th December, 2019 for the offence of murder of his father, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for the sake of brevity) against the second respondent-accused herein viz. Ram Narayan Jat.

3. The said FIR dated 8th December, 2019 had been lodged by the appellant herein between 23:00 hrs and 23:30 hrs in the night stating that earlier on that day, at about 16:00 hrs, his father, aged about 55 years, was attacked by the respondent-accused, at the Lalpura Pachar bus stand, with the intention of killing him. That the respondent-accused pinned the deceased to the ground, sat on his chest and forcefully strangled him, thereby causing his death. Some associates of the respondent-accused who were present at the spot of the incident, helped him in attacking and killing the deceased. The informant-appellant further stated in the FIR that there was a preexisting rivalry between the respondent-accused, his brothers namely, Arjun, Satyanarayn and Okramal and the deceased. That the deceased had previously informed the appellant and certain family members about such rivalry and had communicated that he was apprehensive about his safety owing to the same. That even on the day of the incident, the respondent-accused along with one of his brothers, Okramal had gone to the appellant’s house in the morning and had abused the deceased. The report of the postmortem examination conducted on 9th December, 2019 has recorded that the deceased had died as a result of “asphyxia due to ante mortem strangulation.”

4. The respondent-accused was arrested in connection with the said FIR No. 407/2019 on 10th December, 2019 and was sent to judicial custody. The respondent-accused remained under judicial custody for a period of nearly one year and five months till he was granted bail by the High Court vide impugned order.

5. A charge sheet was submitted by the police before the Court of the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur after conducting an investigation in relation to the aforesaid FIR. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate by Order dated 12th March, 2020 took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court for trial and adjudication.

6. The respondent-accused had earlier preferred applications seeking bail, under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the “CrPC”) before the Court of Additional Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, on two occasions. The same came to be rejected by orders dated 23rd January, 2020 and 6th March, 2020. The accused had also preferred a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan by order dated 12th March, 2020 having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused. The respondent-accused preferred another bail application before the High Court and by the impugned order dated 7th May, 2020, the High Court has enlarged him on bail. Being aggrieved by the grant of bail to the respondent-accused, the informant-appellant has preferred the instant appeal before this Court.

7. We have heard Sri. Basant R., learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Sri. Aditya Kumar Choudhary, learned Counsel for respondent-accused and have perused the material on record.

8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased had been elected in 2015 a