Bail should not be denied without specific evidence against the accused, and the absence of prior animosity supports the case for bail.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1.This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.135/2022, registered at Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 341, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Sitaram Kaswan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13992/2023) has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023. Learned counsel submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the case of Sitaram Kaswan who has already been enlarged on bail.

3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant Shri Bholaram Chahar submitted that in the present case, looking to the specific role assigned to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Sitaram Kaswan is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused- petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There is no specific act attributed to the present petitioner. Neither his name was mentioned in the FIR nor in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. It seems that the name of the petitioner was added later as an afterthought during recording of statement under Section 164 of CrPC. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is stated by the complainant in the FIR as well as his statements that the dispute started from the time when a few people including his father stopped a group of boys who were hooting and blowing horn incessantly allegedly under the influence of alcohol and called their parents while keeping them there. Interestingly, there is no mention of the present petitioner in the names of boys stopped that day as well as in the entire episode put forth by the prosecution. Moreover, it is stated by the complainant in his cross-examination that the complainant party had no previous animosity with the petitioner. The submission on behalf of the petitioner that there is no specific or overt act attributed to the petitioner seems to be worth considering in light of the fact that there is no specific evidence against the petitioner, even for the namesake, at this stage. The genuineness of the allegations is to be adjudged after appreciation of evidence during tr