Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, emphasizing that mere implication is insufficient for denial of bail.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Sanchore, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 458, 323, 364-A, 395, 307, 384, 355 and 342/149 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 petitioner is the father of co-accused Suresh Kumar, who had allegedly looted and beaten the complainant along with co-accused persons namely Shrawan Kumar, Praveen Kumar etc. Learned counsel submitted that specific allegation against the present petitioner is that his son Suresh Kumar had handed over to him, the amount allegedly looted by him from the complainant alongwith co-accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence or he had any previous intimation/information regarding his son being involved in an offence of looting. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner being the father of the co-accused Suresh Kumar has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the nature of allegations against the present petitioner, his custodial interrogation is not at all necessitated in the present case; no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. The petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation.

4. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel contended that in the present case, the amount allegedly handed over by the co-accused Suresh Kumar to his father i.e. the present petitioner and the bolero vehicle which was used in commission of the alleged crime is yet to be recovered from the present petitioner. It was thus prayed that the present anticipatory bail application may be rejected.

6. Learned counsels however were not in a position to refute the fact that there is no evidence available on record indicating direct involvement of the present petitioner in commission of alleged crime. They were also not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the interrogation note of the co-accused Ashok Kumar. Prima facie, apart from the interrogation note of the co- accused Ashok Kumar, there is no other evidence available on record indicating involvement of the petitioner in commission of alleged crime.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

8. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner- Kishana Ram S/o Kachba Ram in connection with F.I.R. No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Sanchore, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer;and

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.