Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
DINESH MEHTA, J.
Sharwan, S/o. Shri Arjun Ram and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16244 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024
Bail Application - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860, sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 120-B - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including call details analysis, recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, and witness statements. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the involvement of the applicants in the offence, and granted bail based on the lack of incriminating evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants filed a bail application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No.323/2023, for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution relied on call details analysis and recovery of the alleged weapon of offence to oppose the bail application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the involvement of the applicants in the offence. It highlighted discrepancies in witness statements and the lack of direct evidence linking the applicants to the crime. The court also questioned the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence and the reliability of the call details analysis.
Issues: The key issues were the sufficiency of evidence to establish the involvement of the applicants in the offence, the reliability of witness statements, and the validity of the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence and call details analysis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the lack of incriminating evidence against the applicants, including discrepancies in witness statements, questionable recovery of the alleged weapon of offence, and unreliable call details analysis.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed, and the applicants were granted bail based on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish their involvement in the offence.
ORDER :
1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicants under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No.323/2023, registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali, for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341 & 302 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel for the applicants invited Court’s attention towards the written complaint, which was lodged by the brother of the deceased (Mahendra Kumar) and pointed out that the complainant had stated that when he along with his sister-in-law Shobha (wife of the deceased) were going on the motorcycle, they saw various persons brutally beating his brother - the deceased (Mahendra Kumar). He also pointed out that in the said written complaint he had named Shaitan Ram; Deva Ram; Ram Lal, R/o Dola Nada, Sojat City; Kalu Ram; Ganga Ram, R/o Ramsanibala; Joga Ram; Pema Ram; Guman Ram; Budha Ram, R/o Dhandhedi who had beaten the deceased with lathis, iron rods and sticks with an intention to murder the deceased (Mahendra Kumar).
3. Thereafter, Mr. Kumbhat took the Court through the statement of wife of the deceased Smt. Shobha, recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and highlighted that the wife claims to have seen various persons beating the deceased in which names of the present applicants had not been mentioned.
4. Learned counsel further took the Court through the statement of Madan Lal (the complainant) and submitted that while giving the statement under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the complainant slightly changed his version and stated that the deceased had informed him about the persons who had beaten him and even in such statement, the names of present applicants were not mentioned.
5. Learned counsel further took the Court through the statement of Ram Lal (father of the deceased) and submitted that in such statement given on 18.09.2023, names of various persons have been mentioned excluding the names of the present applicants.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants have been named firstly by one Om Nath in his statement recorded under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, on 05.09.2023, but he also did not claim himself to have seen the incident of murder but attributed his knowledge to the version of the deceased (Mahendra Kumar).
7. Having invited Court’s attention towards these statements, learned counsel submitted that the only basis on which the prosecution has enroped the applicant No.1 is, the purported call details and call location analysis and the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence from both the applicants.
8. Mr. Kumbhat argued that surprisingly enough, the prosecution has not filed charge-sheet against the named accused persons and has dropped many of them, while present applicants have been wrongly implicated, though no eye witness or other evidence is available against them.
9. Learned counsel submitted that the recovery of the Lathi made by the Investigating Officer in the police custody unless, supported by any other incriminating evidence such as blood stains of the deceased etc., cannot be sufficient evidence to bring home the charge levelled against the applicants.
10. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application while contending that the call details analysis and call location of the applicant No.1 Sharwan clearly shows his presence in the village Sardarpura (during 13.35 pm to 14.06 pm). He added that the fact that the recovery of a Lathi has been made from the present applicant and argued that it cannot be said that the applicants were not involved in the offence of murder of the deceased.
11. Mr. Nishant Bora, learned counsel for the complainant also vehemently opposed the bail application.
12. Mr. Bora took the Court through the call details analysis (at page 169) and submitted that the presence of the applicant No.1 at the place of incident is well established
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must provide sufficient and reliable evidence to establish the involvement of the accused in the offence, and the court will 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 court granted bail based on the absence of recovery from the applicant and inconsistencies in the dying declaration, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence in bail considerations.
Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the length of judicial custody can be a factor in granting bail.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
The court granted bail based on the absence of weapons, lack of witness intimidation, and the delay in trial not attributable to the petitioners.
The court established that the gravity of allegations and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence are critical factors in bail considerations under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court denied bail based on the gravity of the charges and substantial corroborating evidence of the applicant's active involvement in the murder.
The main legal point established is that bail may be granted based on the specific allegations and witness statements, and the expected duration of the trial.
Point of Law : Rejection of Bail - Several of co-accused are still absconding - There is a likelihood of applicant also jumping bail and flee from justice since many of his associates are yet to be a....
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
