Back
2018 Supreme(Raj) 1743
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Mr. P.K. Lohra, J.
Amarpreet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail No. 9323 of 2018
Decided On : 04-10-2018
Pradeep Shah, Advocate, for Appellant; S.K. Vyas, AAG, for Respondent
The court's decision was based on the principle that a substantial change in circumstances, such as key witnesses turning hostile, can warrant the granting of a bail application.
Headnote:
Bail - Change in Circumstances - The court allowed the second bail application of the accused-petitioner based on the substantial change in circumstances, including the statements of key witnesses turning hostile.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-petitioner filed a second bail application facing trial for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, and in alternative Section 302 IPC. The first bail application was dismissed, but the second application was based on the change in circumstances, including key witnesses turning hostile.
Finding of the Court:
The court refrained from making any comment on the merit of the case but allowed the second bail application based on the change in circumstances.
Issues: The key issue was the substantial change in circumstances, including the statements of key witnesses turning hostile, leading to the second bail application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the change in circumstances, specifically the statements of key witnesses turning hostile, which indicated a material change in the case.
Final Decision: The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
Key Points: - The court granted the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 based on substantial change in circumstances, including key witnesses turning hostile. (!) - The change in circumstances referenced specifically includes statements of mother and father of the deceased, and the real brother turning hostile, affecting the prosecution's position. (!) - The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but accepted the change in circumstances as a basis to allow bail. (!) - The accused-petitioner Amarpreet Singh was ordered to be released on bail with specified bond conditions. (!) - First bail application was dismissed earlier, with liberty to renew after recording statements of parents of the deceased. (!) - The decision did not express final determination on merits but relied on material changes in circumstances. (!)
What is the standard for granting bail on a second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of a substantial change in circumstances?
What is the role of statements of key witnesses turning hostile in altering the circumstances for bail?
What are the conditions under which the High Court may allow a second bail application despite prior dismissal?
JUDGMENT
P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and in alternative Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.20/2017, pending before Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The aforementioned criminal case is founded on FIR No.43/2017, registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
2. At the behest of petitioner, first bail application bearing No.6489/2017 was dismissed as not pressed on 10.08.2017 with liberty to renew the prayer afresh after recording statements of parents of deceased.
3. Arguing on this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Shah, that after rejection of first bail application, there is substantial change in the circumstances inasmuch as statements of mother and father of deceased have been recorded during trial. It is also argued by learned counsel that PW1 Kundan Singh, father of the deceased, has not supported prosecution case by turning hostile. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW2 Paramjeet Kaur, mother of deceased-Amandeep Kaur, too has not supported prosecution case by turning hostile. Likewise, according to learned counsel, PW3 Harpreet Singh, real brother of deceased-Amandeep Kaur, has also resiled from his earlier statements by turning hostile. It is submitted by learned counsel that all the three witnesses are the star witnesses so far as offence under Section 304B or alternatively Section 302 IPC is concerned, and therefore, their act of not supporting prosecution case has made out a case of material change in the circumstances. He, therefore, urged that the second bail application of the accused-petitioner merits favourable consideration.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the second bail application of petitioner in general.
5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and also noticed the change in circumstances canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the statements of all the three witnesses.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, while refraining to make any comment on merit, I feel persuaded to accept this second bail application.
7. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Amarpreet Singh S/o Sh. Angrej Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.43/2017, Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of 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.
