Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1400

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Mayaram - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through The PP - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5698 of 2023
Decided On : 12-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Ashvin Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr.M.K.Sheoran, PP, for the Respondent.

The court established that a lack of evidence, particularly following a hostile witness testimony, can warrant the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Headnote:
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner arrested for serious offenses, noting the lack of evidence following the prosecutrix's hostile testimony and the prolonged trial duration, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was arrested in connection with serious offenses under IPC and POCSO Act. The prosecutrix, a key witness, was declared hostile during her testimony.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was insufficient evidence against the petitioner to justify continued detention, especially given the hostile testimony of the prosecutrix and the lengthy trial process.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to bail when there is no substantial evidence against the accused, particularly when the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Result: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

ORDER

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.185/2022, Police Station Sultanpur, Distt. Kota Rural for the offence under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 5(th) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix has been examined before the trial court as PW-1 and she has been declared hostile. There is no other evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime. The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.

5. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mayaram S/o Dhanraj shall be enlarged on bail in FIR No.185/2022, Police Station Sultanpur, Distt. Kota Rural provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document