Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Anchi Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8991 of 2021
Decided On : 15-09-2021
BAIL - JUDICIAL CUSTODY - The court analyzed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., considering the age of the petitioner, lack of direct evidence in the F.I.R., and the implications of the FSL report. The court emphasized the presence of blood stains on the petitioner's clothing and the recovery of an axe, which contributed to the decision to deny bail, highlighting the seriousness of the charges under Section 302 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 67-year-old woman, sought bail while in judicial custody for alleged involvement in a murder case (F.I.R. No.78/2020) under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner claimed she was falsely implicated, as her name was not in the F.I.R., and argued that blood stains on her clothes were due to her handling the deceased's body.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments from both sides, noting the absence of direct evidence against the petitioner and the delay in her arrest. However, it also acknowledged the FSL report indicating blood on the petitioner's clothing and the recovery of an axe from the scene, which raised concerns about her involvement.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering her age, lack of direct evidence in the F.I.R., and the implications of the FSL report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the presence of blood stains and the recovery of a weapon from the petitioner were significant factors that outweighed her claims of false implication, leading to the conclusion that bail was not appropriate at this stage.
Result: The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
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.78/2020, Police Station Dechu, District Jodhpur, registered for the offences under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Heard and considered the arguments advanced by 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 a 67 years old lady; petitioner’s name has not been mentioned in the F.I.R., the complaint has been filed by son-in-law of the deceased and the present petitioner; there is no evidence against the petitioner and she has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of FSL report; as per the FSL report, blood stains have been found on the clothes of the petitioner, in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that body of the deceased has been turned by petitioner, therefore, blood stains have been found on the clothes of the petitioner. Learned counsel further stated that two other persons have also been named in the F.I.R. but they have not been charge-sheeted; they have been presented as witness in this case; petitioner has been arrested after nine months of the incident; charge-sheet has been filed; and the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application and stated that as per the statement of Babu Ram who reached at the spot after the information; recovery of axe has been made from the accused-petitioner from the place of the occurrence. As per FSL report available at page no.69 of charge-sheet, human blood has been found on kanchli, kurti, ghaghra and odhana of the accused-petitioner as well as on the kulhadi, blood smeared soil, pillow cover, raali cover, etc. There is no evidence which shows that dead body of the deceased was turned by the accused-petitioner.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not found it a fit case to grant benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner, at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
The court established that the presence of forensic evidence and the recovery of a weapon can be sufficient grounds to deny bail, even in the absence of direct accusations in the F.I.R.
The court granted bail based on the absence of weapons, lack of witness intimidation, and the delay in trial not attributable to the petitioners.
The court affirmed that in serious offenses, circumstantial evidence and severity of potential punishment must prevail in bail considerations, denying the petitioner's release amid serious accusation....
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence of motive and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing the right to timely trial.
The court established that in the absence of direct evidence and considering the circumstances of the accused, bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C., especially when the trial is expected to ....
The court considered the lack of direct evidence, the age of the accused-petitioner, and the expected lengthy trial as grounds for granting bail.
The court established that the seriousness of the charges and the evidence against the accused are critical factors in determining bail eligibility under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence against the accused and no apprehension of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The court granted bail based on the absence of recovery from the applicant and inconsistencies in the dying declaration, emphasizing the need for prima facie evidence in bail considerations.
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
