A petitioner cannot be denied bail solely based on co-accused statements when not named in the FIR and lacking direct evidence.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. This second application for bail under 483 BNSS  has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.250/2024 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, District Pali, for offences under Sections 189(4), 329(3), 115(2), 191(3), 111(2)(b) , 49 and 109(1)/190 of BNS .

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

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and statements of the injured persons namely Rakesh and Omdutt Dave recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been named as an accused in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused in the present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-accused persons so also no weapon allegedly used in the commission of the alleged crime has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the injured persons namely Rakesh and Ombutt Dave clearly indicate that specific allegation of inflicting injuries with sharp and blunt weapons upon them has been levelled against the co-accused persons namely, Kamal Singh, Chensingh, Kuldeep Singh Rajput, Jayanti Banjara, Prakash and Dashrath etc.

4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; investigation against the present petitioner has already been concluded and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that during the pendency of the present bail application, the parties have entered into a compromise and decided to settle their dispute amicably in the Lok Adalat and he has no objection in case the present petitioner is enlarged on bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ravi Kumar S/o Kishore Kumar arrested in connection with FIR No.250/2024 registered at Police Station Industrial Area, District Pali, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.