The court emphasized that a lack of direct evidence and significant delay in filing an FIR can justify granting bail, highlighting the need for a strong prima facie case.

ORDER :

1. Rule. Learned APP waives service of Rule on behalf of the Respondent-State.

2. The Applicants have filed this Applications under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging the Applicants on Regular Bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.11195009240389 of 2024 registered with Chhapi Police Station. Banaskantha.

3. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Bhadresh Raju with learned advocate Mr.Tatsat A. Bhatt for the applicants and learned APP Mr.Hardik Soni for the Respondent – State.

4. He submitted that the offence alleged in the FIR had taken place on 24.6.2024 whereas the FIR came to be lodged for the said offence on 23.7.2024, that is after the period of one month. The delay caused in lodging the FIR had not been explained. The case of prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstantial evidence, which is sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the present applicants is not complete and does not prompt towards the guilt of the applicants. There is no material, whatsoever, connecting the present applicants with the offence in question. The circumstances which are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against the present applicants are direct piece of evidence which is not likely to result into the conviction of the present applicants for the offence in question.

4.1 Learned Advocate for the Applicants submitted that the Applicants have good reputation in the society and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicants in jail for indefinite period. It is further contended that the applicants are ready and willing to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by this Court if released on bail.

5. Per contra, learned APP has vehemently opposed the present applications for grant of regular bail contending that the applicants herein had actively participated in commission of the offence in question. The deceased was done to death and the incident was sought to be projected as a vehicular accident and thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was also buried in without performance of any postmortem. He submitted that one of the applicants had illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased and the same had resulted into the commission of the present offence. Thus, there is a strong prima facie evidence against the present applicants for the offence in question. He therefore submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court may not exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants and the applications may be dismissed.

6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record. From the record it appears that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed. As per the case of prosecution, one of the present applicants namely Altaf and wife of the deceased were in illicit relationship and since the deceased had known about the said relationship, there used to be frequent quarrels and therefore it was decided by the accused persons to eliminate the deceased.

6.1 From the record it appears that on the fateful day, the deceased was dashed by the tractor and the said tractor was being driven by one of the present applicants at the relevant time. It is the case of prosecution that the applicant namely Rahim Khan had dashed the tractor with the deceased with an intention to kill him. He had also borrowed the tractor from his owner and after the incident was over, the same was sought to be projected as a vehicular accident. It is also the case of prosecution that after the incident had taken place, the applicant namely Altaf had not allowed the postmortem to be carried out upon the dead body of the deceased nor had allowed any FIR to be lodged. Thus, the conduct on part of the present applicants prior to the incident and after the incident is sought to be canvassed by the prosecution against the present applicants. However, there is no direct evidence so far as the involvement of the present applicants in the