The court established that in the absence of strong evidence against the accused and considering the principle of personal liberty, bail should be granted.

Headnote:
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. after considering the totality of circumstances, including the lack of evidence supporting the prosecution's case and the fact that co-accused had been granted bail. The court emphasized the importance of personal liberty and the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested for offences under Sections 363, 364-A, and 120-B IPC. This was his fourth bail application after previous rejections, with the Investigating Officer stating that the abducted child was not found in the petitioner's custody and key witnesses had turned hostile.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstances surrounding the case, including the lack of supportive witness testimony and the similar case of a co-accused being granted bail, warranted the granting of bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the evidence presented and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty are paramount, especially when the prosecution's case lacks strong evidence.
Result: The court allowed the fourth bail application, directing the petitioner to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and sureties.

JUDGMENT

Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.381/2018 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364-A and 120-B IPC. He has preferred this fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of third bail application of the petitioner, the statements of Investigating Officer have been recorded before the trial court, wherein he has clearly stated that the abducted child was not recovered from the custody of the petitioner. It is further submitted that all the prosecution witnesses such as parents of the child and other important witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is also submitted that co-accused Mujahid @ Koju, whose case is similar to the petitioner, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

4 .Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

5. Accordingly, this fourth bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner - Rahim @ Tiger S/o Abdul Khalid shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.381/2018 of Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document