The court established that significant discrepancies in evidence can lead to the granting of bail under Section 439 CrPC, underscoring the necessity for reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.

Headnote:
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail to the petitioners based on significant discrepancies in the FIR and witness statements regarding their involvement in the alleged assault, highlighting the importance of credible evidence in bail considerations under Section 439 CrPC.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Prema Ram and Ratnaram, were in custody for their alleged involvement in an assault leading to murder, as per FIR No.39/2021. Prema Ram was not named in the FIR, while Ratnaram was identified as an assailant. However, witness testimonies conflicted, with some naming Prema Ram and others not mentioning Ratnaram.
Finding of the Court:

The court noted the grave discrepancies between the FIR and witness statements, indicating a lack of consistent evidence against the petitioners. This led to the conclusion that the petitioners should be granted bail.
Issues: Whether the discrepancies in the FIR and witness statements warranted the granting of bail to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail can be granted when there is a lack of credible evidence linking the accused to the crime, as demonstrated by the conflicting accounts of witnesses and the FIR.
Result: The bail applications were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the required bonds.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Mehta, J. - These two bail applications under Section 439 CrPC have been preferred by the petitioners (1) Prema Ram S/o Madan Lal (2) Ratnaram S/o Ramaram, who are in custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.39/2021 registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 302, 458 and 120-B IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the challan papers.

3. The incident involves assault on the members of the complainant party, which took in the late hours of 30.03.2021. The written report of the incident came to be lodged by Dinesh Ram, son of the deceased Bhoma Ram, to the SHO, Police Station Jhanwar at the mortuary of MDM Hospital, Jodhpur, wherein, the petitioner Prema Ram is not named as an assailant. Petitioner Ratnaram is named as an assailant in the FIR. When the witnesses were examined during investigation, first informant Dinesh Ram did not name the petitioner Prema Ram. However, he named the petitioner Ratnaram as being one of the assailants. On the contrary, eye-witnesses Looni Devi, Baya Devi, Pepa Devi, Govind Ram, Shyama Ram and Deepa Ram took the name of Prema Ram as being one of the assailants, but they did not allege involvement of the petitioner Ratnaram. From the various accused named by Dinesh Ram in the FIR, Prema Ram, Kheta Ram and Kalki Devi have not been found involved in the incident. Manifestly, thus, a grave discrepancy in the FIR and in the statements of the material eye-witnesses regarding participation of the accused petitioners in the incident.

4. In this background and having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners.

5. Accordingly, these two bail applications under Section 439 CrPC are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Prema Ram S/o Madan Lal (2) Ratnaram S/o Ramaram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.39/2021 registered at the Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-and 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document