The court established that prolonged judicial custody and lack of evidence from key witnesses can warrant the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2016, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that petitioner is behind the bars since 29.10.2018; charge-sheet has been filed; name of the petitioner has not been mentioned in the FIR; statements of eleven witnesses have been recorded before the learned trial Court; witnesses PW.1 to PW.6 did not support the story of prosecution and turned hostile; statement of Dr. Irfan recorded as PW.7, during the statement he opined that injury for which opinion has been obtained is found as simple in nature and it is also corroborated at the page No.140 of the charge-sheet; no specific allegation has been made against the petitioner; benefit of bail has been granted to co-accused persons, namely, Imtiyaz @ Salim, Aslam @ Mama @ Dantala & Anr., Akshay Jain, Iqbal Vipar, Magan Singh, Mohammad Yunush, Javed Khan and Abdul Razzak @ Bittu; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that there is an allegation of use of fire arm against the accused-petitioner.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that charge-sheet has been filed; witnesses PW.1 to PW.6 did not support the story of prosecution and turned hostile; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 29.10.2018; benefit of bail has been granted by co-ordinate Bench(s) of this Court to co-accused persons, namely, Imtiyaz @ Salim vide order dated 26.08.2019 (Bail Application No.8034/2019), Aslam @ Mama @ Dantala & Anr. vide order dated 20.10.2016 (Bail Application No.9169/2016), Akshay Jain vide order dated 10.08.2016 (Bail Application No.7018/2016), Iqbal Vipar vide order dated 05.07.2016 (Bail Application No.5175/2016), Magan Singh vide order dated 02.06.2016 (Bail Application No.5025/2016), Mohammad Yunush @ Anr. vide order dated 30.05.2016 (Bail Application No.4818/2016), and Abdul Razzak @ Bittu vide order dated 02.05.2016 (Bail Application No.2153/2016); and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

6. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner - Mohammad Ajam S/o Saeed Ahmed, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.69/2016, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.