The court granted bail due to conflicting witness statements and non-fatal injuries, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for a fair trial.

ORDER :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1.The instant third bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 441/2023 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Section 302 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 23.05.2024 with liberty to file afresh after recording of the statements of the eye-witnesses Sher Singh and Janak Singh. Thereafter, the second bail application was preferred by the petitioner Rakesh Kumar through another advocate and that was withdrawn. It is further contended that the material eye witnesses PW-1 Sher Singh and PW-2 Janak Singh have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story, in their cross examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor both the witnesses have denied the fact that the accused-petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stick which resulted in his death. It is also contended that statement of PW-3 Lokesh and PW-4 Sonam are also not reliable and trustworthy, as they have stated themselves to be eye witnesses, whereas in their police statements rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. they have attempted to implicate the other family members of the accused-petitioner Rakesh as culprits. Investigating agency after thorough investigation found that petitioner’s wife Saroj and sons Deepak and Gajendra were not present at the place of occurrence when the incident took place. The investigating agency also concluded that deceased was alcoholic and at the time of incident also he had consumed alcohol. PW-3 in the FIR aslo stated that the incident took place in the house of accused-petitioner Rakesh Kumar, whereas according to the police the alleged incident took place before the shop of Sher Singh and other persons, in the site plan also the place of occurrence marked as-X, is entirely different from the petitioner's house. It is further contended that PW-3 Lokesh in his deposition before the court changed the place of occurrence again from the house of the petitioner to vicinity of petitioner's house, therefore the statements of PW-3 Lokesh and PW-4 Sonam are also not reliable. Further, the cause of death aslo yet not been disclosed. The concerned Medical Board has kept his opinion reserved. In the post mortem report two injuries are shown and both the injuries are not at the vital part. It is mentioned in the post mortem report that deceased was having two wounds out of which one was lacerated wound just on the right side of the right ear and second was abrasion wound at the middle part of the left ear, even if it is presumed that the accused-petitioner has caused the injuries to the deceased then aslo the injuries sustained to deceased were not sufficient to cause death and there was no murderous intention of the petitioner to cause the death of the deceased. The accused petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2023 and the trial of the case will take considerable time. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and contended that though the two eye witnesses PW-1 Sher Singh and PW-2 Janak Singh have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story however the other two material eye witnesses PW-3 Lokesh and PW-4 Sonam have supported the prosecution story. PW-3 Lokesh and PW-4 Sonam in their examination-in-chief have clearly stated that the petitioner assaulted the deceased with a stick which resulted into injuries at his ear. He fairly concedes that the medical opinion has yet not been placed on record. Considering the statements of PW-3 Lokesh and PW-4 Sonam, the third bail application of the accused- petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard