Bail can be granted when co-accused are released and specific allegations against the petitioner are lacking, considering the duration of judicial custody.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

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.141/2022, registered at Police Station Banera, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 302, 396, 449, 459, 460 and 120-B of IPC.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused persons namely Anil (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7994/2023), Rakesh (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.9417/2023), Narayan and Pappu @ Chinya (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2051/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 21.07.2023, 04.08.2023 and 01.06.2023.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the eye witness- Jana Devi (PW.6), learned counsel submitted that the role assigned to the present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submitted that though as per the prosecution, an iron rod allegedly used in commission of alleged crime has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner but the same is not containing any blood stains. Learned counsel submitted that since the statements of the eye witness- Jana Devi have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing her or the other material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.11.2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, the specific allegation of inflicting fatal injury upon the deceased has been levelled against the present petitioner and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the facts that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by this Court; and so also that the eye-witness of the alleged incident- Jana Devi (PW.6) during her Courts statements has not levelled any specific allegation against the present petitioner.

7. 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.

8. Consequently, the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner- Prakash S/o Kanya Kanjar, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.141/2022, registered at Police Station Banera, District Bhilwara, 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.

9. 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.