Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Sanwar Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous 2Nd Bail Application No. 3926 of 2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court denied the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after finding sufficient evidence indicating the petitioner's aggressive involvement in the incident, despite claims of false implication and discrepancies in witness statements. The court emphasized the importance of the statements from prosecution witnesses that implicated the petitioner directly in the crime, leading to the conclusion that bail was not warranted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.93/2020 for multiple offenses under IPC, including murder. He filed a second bail application claiming no reliable evidence against him and asserting he was falsely implicated.
Finding of the Court:
The court reviewed the evidence and found that witness statements indicated the petitioner played an aggressive role in the incident, contradicting the petitioner's claims of innocence.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail despite the serious charges and witness testimonies implicating him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the presence of credible witness statements indicating the petitioner's involvement in the crime outweighed his claims of false implication, justifying the denial of bail.
Result: The second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.93/2020 of Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325 & 302 IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no reliable material available on record so as to make out any prima facie case against the present petitioner, and thus, the petitioner has been falsely implicated as an accused in this case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegation of causing fatal injury to deceased Sriram is against coaccused Ghishu Lal, and furthermore, one of the co-accused, namely, Smt. Chandri Devi w/o Ghishu Lal had already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Hon ble Court vide order dated 07.08.2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6152/2020.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the discrepancies between the statements rendered by the material prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly indicate that the present petitioner has been wrongly arrayed as an accused in this case.
7. This Court, after examining the record, finds that the statement of PW-1 Nandlal clearly indicates that the petitioner had an aggressive role in causing the incident in question. In the statement rendered before the learned trial court, PW-3 Sajjani clearly named the present petitioner as one of the aggressive participants.
8. Thus, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner.
9. Consequently, the present second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
The court upheld the principle that credible witness testimony can establish a prima facie case sufficient to deny bail, even in the face of claims of false implication.
The court established that in bail applications, the duration of custody and the nature of the charges are critical factors, and mere allegations without substantial evidence do not justify continued....
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the circumstances of the case, including the absence of allegations and prolonged custody, justify such a decision.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the circumstances of the case, including witness statements and the duration of custody, justify such a decision.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the nature of the injuries is simple and the proceedings are likely to be prolonged, ensuring a fair balance between the ....
The court established that prolonged custody without prior criminal history and the existence of a cross case can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The Court considered the similarity of the petitioner's case to the co-accused who had been enlarged on bail and the exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic in granting bail under Sect....
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.
The court established that under Section 439 Cr.P.C., bail may be granted when the duration of custody is excessive and the trial is expected to take a significant amount of time.
The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and granted bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 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
