Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOVNA@ MOVA @ MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
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.217/2024 registered at Police Station Sumerpur, Dist.Pali, for the offences under Sections 302 and 147/149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution as born out from the FIR is that on 17.4.2024, the complainant – Pappu Ram came to Police Station Sumerpur, District Pali with Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kukawas and reported that his son Hami Ram has been murdered by some unknown persons. In the FIR, the complainant suspected that his son has been killed by one Manoj Kumar and few other persons.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR and challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye- witness of the alleged incident. It was contended that during the course of investigation, the police has recovered CCTV footages and call details of co-accused persons namely Prem, Suresh @ Suriya, Prabhu, Prakash @ Kuka and Kala @ Kalu @
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing that CDRs cannot solely support a conviction.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence of motive and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing the right to timely trial.
The presumption of innocence prevails at the pre-conviction stage, necessitating bail when evidence is insufficient to justify continued custody.
The absence of eyewitness testimony and hostile witnesses justifies granting bail, particularly in cases with circumstantial evidence and no clear motive.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when petitioners are not specifically named in the FIR and have no assigned role in the alleged crime, highlighting the discretionary nature of bail.
The court granted bail based on the nature of injuries being simple and the completion of the investigation, with no risk of influencing witnesses.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
