Granting bail based on lack of evidence and expected lengthy trial duration.

ORDER

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.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 365, 364A, 302 and 34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused Vinay Dhawan recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submitted that except the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that from the perusal of FIR and charge-sheet, it is evident that co-accused Vinay Dhawan was demanding money from the deceased owing to some business relations. Learned counsel submitted that in the entire FIR and charge-sheet, there is no evidence of motive against the present petitioner.

3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that co-accused Sunil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2023 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.1805/2023. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Learned counsel thus, implored the court to accept the bail application.

4. The order dated 3.5.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Sunil is reproduced hereinbelow:

"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.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh for offences under Sections 365, 364-A, 302 and 34 of IPC.

5. As per prosecution, on 08.05.2022, complainants son Kuldeep Sharma was abducted by co-accused- Vinay Dhawan with three-four other persons. Kuldeep Sharma was taken to Haryana where he was beaten brutally, whereafter a video call was made by Kuldeep Sharma to his father i.e. the complainant, informing that he has been kept hostage by co-accused Vinay Dhawan and other persons demanding ransom of Rs. 60,00,000/-. The complainant could not arrange the money demanded by theaccused persons. As per prosecution, co-accused Vinay Dhawan after brutally beating the son of the complainant (Kuldeep Sharma), got him admitted in a private hospital situated at Rohtak (Haryana), from where he was taken by the complainant and family members to a higher medical centre (S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur), however, Kuldeep Sharma succumbed to the injuries on 14.05.2022. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and in the post mortem report, the Medical Board opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is coma due to ante mortem head injury (injury No.1 - abrasion of 3x2 cm at left forehead) which was opined to be individually as well as cumulatively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

6. The investigating agency after making thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner, co-accused- Vinay Dhawan, Vikram @ Sunda before competent criminal court on 25.11.2022. As per the charge sheet, deceased Kuldeep Sharma had business relations with co-accused Vinay Dhawan wherein co-accused- Vinay Dhawan financed five vehicles purchased by deceased Kuldeep Sharma, however, after making payment of first installment, the deceased failed to pay remaining installments and owing to aforesaid dispute, a conspiracy to abduct the deceased and demand ransom from family members of the deceased was hatched by co-accused Vinay Dhawan.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had no motive to abduct or commit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that from perusal of the charge sheet, it would be evident that there is no