Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 563

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
BHAGWATI LAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 663 / 2025

Advocates:
Mr. Kapil Purohit, Mr. N.K. Gurjar, GA cum AAG, Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP

The court emphasized that bail should be granted when the accused is in custody for an extended period, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses, especially when a co-accused has been granted bail.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Second application for bail filed by the petitioner arrested for offences under Sections 376-D & 342 of IPC - Co-accused granted bail, and the petitioner argued for similar relief citing judicial custody and lengthy trial - Public Prosecutor opposed bail citing seriousness of allegations but could not refute co-accused's bail - Court found no apprehension of influencing witnesses and allowed bail. (Paras 1, 3, 5, 6, 7)

(B) Bail - Principles governing bail - The court considers the nature of allegations, the duration of custody, and the potential for influencing witnesses when deciding on bail applications. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with a serious offence and sought bail, arguing that the co-accused had been granted bail and that the trial would take a long time. The prosecutrix's cross-examination raised doubts about the allegations against the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the case of the petitioner was not distinguishable from that of the co-accused who had been granted bail, and there was no apprehension of influencing witnesses.

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be granted bail in light of the co-accused's bail and the seriousness of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should be granted bail due to the lack of evidence suggesting he would influence witnesses and the lengthy trial ahead.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

1. This second 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.149/2023, registered at Police Station Ogna, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 376-D & 342 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 co-accused person namely Mannalal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 16121/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co- accused who has already been enlarged on bail. 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 has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of 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 above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The order dated 06.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“This second 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.149/2023, registered at Police Station Ogna, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 376-D & 342 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the prosecutrix recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW.8, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the prosecutrix during her chief-examination has levelled allegation of she being subjected to forcible sexual assault- rape against the present petitioner. However, during cross-examination of the prosecutrix she has clearly denied the allegation of sexual assault- rape against the present petitioner. The prosecutrix during her cross-examination has stated that the written complaint submitted by her before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur on 16.12.2023 is not the correct version of the incident and the person who had typed the written complaint has given an aggregated version of the incident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that a bare perusal of the challan papers would indicate that the evidence collected during the trial by the Investigating Agency also does not reveal the specific date or time of the occurrence of the alleged incident.

Learned counsel submitted that since the statements of the prosecutrix have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the prosecutrix.

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.

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 prosecutrix during her cross-examination has not levelled any allegation of forcible sexual assault- rape committed upon her against the present petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned