A defendant may be granted bail if the allegations do not directly implicate them in the commission of a serious crime, particularly when they are merely an accomplice to the principal accused.

Headnote:
[BAIL] - [CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] - The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner, emphasizing that the only allegation against him was being an accomplice to the principal accused, with no direct allegations of rape. The court interpreted the evidence presented, particularly the statement of the victim, to conclude that the petitioner was entitled to bail due to insufficient grounds for continued custody.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a third bail application while in custody for offences under Sections 363, 366A of the IPC, Section 16/17 of the POCSO Act, and Section 84 of the J.J. Act, following the rejection of a previous bail application.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the only allegation against the petitioner was that he accompanied the principal accused, Mahesh, and there were no allegations of rape against him. This led the court to conclude that the petitioner was entitled to bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail given the nature of the allegations and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of direct allegations against the petitioner and the nature of his involvement as merely an accomplice justified the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Result: The court allowed the bail application, ordering the release of the petitioner upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.409/2020, Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A of the I.P.C., under Section 16/17 of POCSO Act and under Section 84 of J.J.Act.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner by this Court on 14.01.2021, the statement of Mst."S" has been recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-3. He further submits that there is no allegation of rape against the present petitioner. The only allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he accompanied the principal accused Mahesh. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

5. upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and gone through the statement of PW-3(Mst."S) wherein, the allegation of rape is against Mahesh and the petitioner is only the person who accompanied the principal accused Mahesh, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

6. Consequently, the 3rd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Prakash @ Ram Prakash S/o Shree Kunaram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.409/2020, Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document