Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Raj) 2412

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6179 of 2021 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6180 of 2021.
Decided On : 18-08-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Pradeep Shah, Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore, for the Appellant; Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP, Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma, for the Respondent.

Bail can be granted when allegations are not specific and co-accused have been released, reflecting the principle of equality in legal treatment.

Headnote:
Bail - Judicial Custody - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for specific allegations against the accused and the consideration of co-accused's bail status, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while in judicial custody for alleged involvement in a violent incident resulting in a death, with claims of no specific allegations against them and the trial expected to take time.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the allegations against the petitioners were omnibus and that co-accused had been granted bail, indicating a lack of strong evidence against the petitioners, thus warranting their release on bail.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail given the nature of allegations and the status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners and the granting of bail to co-accused justified the acceptance of the bail applications.
Result: The bail applications of the petitioners are allowed.

ORDER

1. The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 193/2020, Police Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur, registered for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 & 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the complainant side were the aggressors and they have committed crime against the petitioners' side; that the incident in question took place near Bharat Gas Agency; that as per the statement of Chimna Ram (one of the eye-witness), head injury of the deceased (Guman Ram) was attributed to Surja Ram; that as per the injury report, there were two injuries; that injury No.1 was skin deep lacerated wound and injury No.2 was abrasion; that as per the postmortem report, there were 14 injuries, 8 were abrasions and remaining were bruises; that no specific allegation was levelled against the accused-petitioners and only omnibus allegations were levelled against all the accused persons; that benefit of bail was granted to Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi, Bhalla Ram and Surja Ram; that the witnesses Smt. Urma W/o Rameshwar Lal and Smt. Sayari W/o Badar Ram were independent witnesses; that as per their statement, they cannot be said to be eyewitnesses; that charge-sheet has been filed; and that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the benefit of bail was granted to the co-accused Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi on the ground that she was a lady and similarly to the other co-accused Bhalla Ram on the ground that he was 85 years old person; that the co-accused Surja Ram was not granted regular bail, he was granted interim bail. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that injuries were caused by the accused-petitioners as per the statement of Suresh Kumar, Jeevan Ram, Sampat Ram, Akha Ram and Bablu (son of the deceased -Guman Ram); that lathies used in the incident were recovered from the present accused-petitioners, Gajendra and Durgesh. Learned counsel prayed that the benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioners.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that all the above witnesses, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the complainant, can be said to be hearsay witnesses, not the eyewitnesses.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that the head injury caused to the deceased (Guman Ram) was attributed to the co-accused Surja Ram and for remaining injuries, omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons; that no specific allegation has been levelled against the present accused-petitioners; that the benefit of bail has already been granted to the co-accused persons, namely, Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi W/o Surja Ram vide order dated 22.02.2021 (Bail Application No. 2570/2021), Bhalla Ram S/o Riddharam vide order dated 04.02.2021 (Bail Application No. 1148/2021) and Surja Ram S/o Bhalaram vide order dated 04.09.2020 (Interim Bail Application No. 9149/2020) by the coordinate Bench/s of this Court; that charge-sheet has been filed; and that further 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 applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

7. Consequently, both the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners, Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan S/o Surja Ram (Bail Application No.6179/2021) and D

Click Here to Read the rest of this document