Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Ramgopal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 16538/2021 Connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 16576/2021
Decided On : 10-11-2021
[BAIL] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - [The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, considering the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, their length of custody, and absence of criminal antecedents, while emphasizing the need for compliance with conditions set forth in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with FIR No.468/2020 for offences under Sections 498-A, 302, 120-B, and later under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC. They sought bail after being in custody since October 20, 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that key prosecution witnesses had turned hostile or did not support the prosecution's case. It considered the nature of allegations, the petitioners' length of custody, and their lack of criminal history before deciding to grant bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of supportive testimony from key witnesses and the petitioners' prolonged custody warranted the granting of bail, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Result: The bail applications were allowed, and the petitioners were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties as specified.
JUDGMENT
The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.468/2020 registered at Police Station Roopbas, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 498-A, 302, 120-B of IPC and later on for offence under Sections 498-A & 306 IPC.
Drawing attention of this court towards the statement of father (PW-1), brother Shailendra (PW-2), cousin Mahendra Singh (PW-3), brother in law Dharmendra (PW-4), sister Smt. Nitu (PW- 5) and sister Radha (PW-6) of the deceased Sharda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all these material prosecution witnesses have either turned hostile or have not supported the prosecution story. He submits that the petitioners are in custody since 20.10.2020, trial of the case will take time, they have no criminal antecedents and prayed for their release on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the nature of allegation against them, their length of custody and the material on record especially the statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far including father, brother and sisters of the deceased; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
Accordingly, these bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners 1.Ramgopal S/o Kashiram & 2.Ravi @ Ravindra S/o Ramgopal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that they shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.
The court established that the absence of supportive evidence from prosecution witnesses and the petitioners' clean criminal record are significant factors in granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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 court has the discretion to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case.
The decision to grant bail was based on the similarity of the petitioner's case to that of the co-accused who had already been released on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of the Court.
The court may grant bail considering the length of the trial and the nature of the injuries alleged against the accused.
Grant of bail based on the turning of victim and her father hostile, and the totality of the facts and circumstances, without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the totality of the facts and circumstances, even if the victim and her father turn hostile and do not support the case of prosecution.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, including the similarity to co-accused and the hostile nature of the eyewitnesses.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the absence of previous criminal antecedents, and the likelihood of prolon....
The court considered various factors such as the nature of allegations, length of custody, and absence of criminal antecedents in granting bail to the petitioner.
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
