The absence of charge-sheet and lack of evidence connecting the accused to the crime justified the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of B.N.S.S.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.192/2019 registered at Police Station Jaitsar, District Sriganganagar, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323 and 447 of IPC.

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

3. Drawing attention of this Court towards the FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has been named in the FIR but the investigating agency after making thorough investigation in connection with the alleged incident which occurred on 03.07.2019 has not charge- sheeted the petitioner. As per the investigating agency, the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence could not be established during the couse of investigation. Learned counsel further submitted that the congnizance against the present petitioner has been taken by the competent Criminal Court on the basis of the statements of PW-1 (Balveer) and PW-2 (Anusuya) who in their statements have deposed that the petitioner was one of the assailant and on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner had also beaten the deceased along with co-accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Co- accused Ramchandra (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5123/2021) against whom the specific allegation of causing injuries to the deceased is levelled by the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and whose presence was also established by the investigating agency at the place of occurrance while submitting the charge-sheet, has already been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not worse than that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. The order dated 22.04.2021 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court while enlarging co-accused Ramchandra on bail is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

This Court perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.192/2019 of Police Station, Jaitsar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 & 447 IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the incident happened on 03.7.2019. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that, though, there were injuries and the case was tried under Section 307 IPC but the victim thereafter died after a prolonged treatment on 14.10.2019.

Counsel for the petitioner makes a straight submission that the post-mortem report does not indicate cause of death arrived at by the Medical Board to be the injuries sustained during the Incident mentioned in the FIR. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in continuous custody since 04.8.2019.

Learned AAG and Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but are unable to connect the incident with the cause of death, particularly, in light of post- mortem report arrived at by the Medical Board, in which the cause of death has not been mentioned to be the incident of FIR and also the FSL report does not indicate any implication of the present petitioner.

This Court after considering the arguments and the material available on record is conscious of the fact that the allegations made are serious but at the same time the opinion arrived at by the Board of Doctors is totally disconnec