Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Amarkala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 115 of 2022
Decided On : 11-03-2022
Bail Application - Offences under Indian Penal Code - The court granted bail to the accused-petitioner based on the lack of support from witnesses, the petitioner's time in custody, and the expectation of a lengthy trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with F.I.R. No.512/2021, for offences under Sections 498 a, 304 B, 34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the lack of witness support, the petitioner's time in custody, and the expectation of a lengthy trial, granted the bail application without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
Issues: The issues involved the bail application for the accused-petitioner in connection with the mentioned F.I.R. and the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of witness support, the petitioner's time in custody, and the expectation of a lengthy trial, as well as the proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. regarding bail for women.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.
JUDGMENT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.512/2021, Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 498 a, 304 B, 34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard and considered arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that statements of PW.1-Mahendra (father of the deceased), PW.2-Santosh (mother of the deceased), PW.3-Mukesh (sister-in-law of the deceased), PW.4-Mukesh Kumar (brother of the deceased), PW.5-Mahendra [uncle of the deceased (Mama)], PW.6-Rajendra, [uncle of the deceased (Chacha)], PW.7-Pannalal and PW.8-Rajeram (grand father of the deceased) have been recorded before learned trial Court; none of the above mentioned witness has supported the story of prosecution and turned hostile; as per para 5 of the rejection, no other case is registered against the petitioner; petitioner is behind the bars since 18.11.2021; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner but does not controvert the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that none of the witness has supported the story of prosecution and turned hostile; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 18.11.2021; that the proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. is itself very clear that liberal view should be adopted for women while considering bail prayer; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner, amarkala W/o Dilawar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.512/2021, Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/-each to the satisfaction of the 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.
The court considered the lack of witness support, the petitioner's time in custody, and the expectation of a lengthy trial in granting bail to the accused-petitioner.
The proviso of Section 437 Cr.P.C. emphasizes a liberal view for women while considering bail prayer.
The court may grant bail based on the triability of the offences by the Magistrate, filing of charge-sheet, and the expected duration of the trial.
The court established that prolonged custody and the nature of the offences can be sufficient grounds for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court established that bail should be granted based on the principle of equality among co-accused and the consideration of trial duration, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the circumstances indicate that the accused is not a flight risk and the trial is expected to be prolonged.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the status of co-accused and the delay in trial, are critical in deciding bail applicatio....
The court established that prolonged judicial custody without trial, along with the filing of a charge-sheet, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
