Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Indra Bai – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3725 of 2022
Decided On : 20-12-2022
Circumstantial Evidence - Bail Application - The court allowed the bail application filed by the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence and the reliance on circumstantial evidence in the case. The court also considered the cardinal principle regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence established in the judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of MP [AIR 1952 SC 343].
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a bail application against the order passed in connection with FIR No.74/2021 for offences under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC. The petitioner argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and there was no direct evidence to show her culpability.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial may take a long time to conclude and deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's culpability based on circumstantial evidence and the application for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the cardinal principle regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence established in the judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of MP [AIR 1952 SC 343] to allow the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
JUDGMENT
Farjand Ali, J. - The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner-Smt.Indra Bai W/o Shri Harji under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned dated 07.03.2022 passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.74/2021 registered at Police Station Devgarh, District Pratapgrah for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye witness account of the incident is not available. The entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence to show the culpability of the petitioner in the crime. The recovery of a rope at the instance of the petitioner claimed to be farce. Learned counsel submits that in view of cardinal principle regarding appreciation of circumstantial evidence rendered in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of MP [AIR 1952 SC 343], no case is made out against the petitioner to bring home the guilt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. She has nothing to do with the alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
4. Heard. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence and the application of the cardinal principle regarding the appreciation of circumstantial evidence in g....
The court emphasizes the importance of presumption of innocence and potential delays in trial when considering bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court's decision was based on the lack of incriminating evidence exclusively within the knowledge of the accused-petitioners and the lack of support from the star prosecution witness.
The key legal principle established is that bail may be granted based on the circumstances of false implication and the lengthy trial process.
Bail is a fundamental right at the pre-conviction stage, and the burden lies on the prosecution to provide compelling reasons for denial, particularly when witness credibility is in question.
The absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against the accused justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of preventing unnecessary detention without risk of influencing witnesses.
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
