IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Pintu - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLMB 2662 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) BNS Act - Sections 137(2), 65(1), 61(2)(a) - POCSO Act - Sections 5(l)/6 - Bail application - Petitioner arrested under serious allegations, but material witnesses turned hostile - Court considered the submissions and the duration of trial before granting bail - No opinion on merits expressed. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Judicial Custody - The petitioner, being in judicial custody, with no supporting evidence from key witnesses, was deemed eligible for bail, with conditions imposed regarding appearance in court. (Paras 3, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with serious offences but the victim and key witnesses did not support the prosecution, turning hostile during court statements.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the lack of support from material witnesses and the duration of the trial warranted the granting of bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issues included whether the seriousness of allegations justified denial of bail despite hostile witnesses and the implications of judicial custody.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of corroborative testimony from key witnesses, coupled with the length of the trial, justified granting bail without expressing views on the case's merits.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.119/2024, registered at Police Station Delwara, District Rajsamand, for offences under Sections 137(2), 65(1) & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 5(l)/6 of POCSO Act.
2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the victim ‘S’ as PW-1 and other material prosecution witnesses viz. Dalu (PW-2), Nandudi (PW-3) & Mukesh (PW-4) recorded before the competent Criminal Court, Learned counsel submitted that the victim ‘S’ along with material prosecution witnesses during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. It was submitted that since the victim ‘S’ during her Court statements has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile, the chances of the petitioner getting convicted in present case are very bleak.
3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the statements of the material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded 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.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the material prosecution witnesses during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Pintu S/o Shri Prabhu, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.119/2024, registered at Police Station Delwara, District Rajsamand, 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.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
The lack of supporting testimony from key witnesses and prolonged trial duration justified the court's decision to grant bail, despite serious allegations.
The court grants bail due to the absence of supportive testimony from key witnesses, indicating a low likelihood of conviction.
Bail granted due to victim's hostile testimony undermining prosecution's case and consideration of judicial custody duration.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
The court granted bail based on the non-life-threatening nature of the injuries and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of trial duration in bail considerations.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and prolonged detention without trial violates this right, warranting bail for the petitioner.
The court emphasized that prior acquaintance and lack of evidence of coercion justified granting bail, highlighting the importance of assessing risks of influencing witnesses.
Bail may be granted if the accused is in judicial custody, the trial will take a long time, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
Bail can be granted when there is no risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, especially in lengthy trials.
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.