HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Ravi Mewada – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRLMB / 1164 / 2025
Order :
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.62/2024 registered at Police Station Badnor, District Beawar for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 452, 302, 324 and 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR, on 30.04.2024, the petitioner alongwith the co-accused persons namely Shankar and Bhavesh came to the residential premises of the complainant and caused multiple injuries to him and his brother Jagdish with sharp and blunt weapons. The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that he caused injuries to complainant and his brother Jagdish with sharp weapon (knife). Complainant’s brother- Jagdish succumbed to the injuries caused to him by the accused persons while undergoing treatment at Government Hospital, Ajmer.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that the entire incident has been recorded in a CCTV camera installed at the house of the complainant. The police has annexed the analysis of the CCTV footages with the challan papers. The analysis of the CCTV footages clearly shows that at the time when the alleged incident occurred, the petitioner was not carrying any sharp/blunt weapon. The injuries with sharp and blunt weapons to the complainant and the deceased were caused by the co-accused persons namely Shankar and Bhavesh.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan against him has already been filed before the competent criminal Court; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant- Shri Amba Lal have vehemently opposed the bail application. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that as per the CCTV footages recovered by the Investigating Agency, at the time of the alleged incident, though a fight had taken place between the petitioner and the complainant but he was not carrying any weapon. The fatal injuries were inflicted upon the complainant deceased Jagdish by the co- accused Ravi who was carrying a sharp weapon (paper cutter) and Bhavesh who was carrying blunt weapon (base ball bat).
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that as per the challan papers and the CCTV footages recovered by the Investigating Agency on the date of the alleged incident when the fight between the petitioner and the complainant accelerated, the co-accused persons come to the place of occurrence and caused injuries to the complainant and the deceased-Jagdish Chandra with sharp and blunt weapons. The deceased was thereupon taken to the hospital where he died while undergoing treatment. The record of the case prima facie indicates that injuries with sharp and blunt weapons were caused to the deceased persons by the co-accused persons namely Shankar and Bhavesh. Though, the CCTV footages have prima facie established the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence however whether the same is sufficient to establish the complicity of the accused or not is for the trial Court to determine during the course of trial particularly since the CCTV footage prima facie indicates that the petitioner was not carrying any weapon in the incident. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ravi Mewada S/o Shri Ladulal Mewada arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.62/2024 registered
The court granted bail based on CCTV evidence showing the petitioner was not armed during the incident, emphasizing that presence alone does not imply complicity in the crime.
The court grants bail due to lack of specific allegations against the petitioner and recognizes the lengthy trial process, emphasizing the importance of judicial fairness.
Bail may be granted when no specific overt act is attributed to the accused and no recovery is pending, despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when specific allegations against the petitioner are weak, recovery is not pending, and trial duration is expected to be lengthy.
The court granted bail based on the completion of the investigation and the simple nature of injuries, finding no risk of witness tampering or flight.
The court granted bail based on the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioners and the nature of the allegations, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in bail applications.
The absence of eye-witnesses and reliance on conjecture justified the granting of bail, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.