Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Dinesh Mehta, J
Avdesh Manji – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(DINESH MEHTA, J.)
1. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 08/2023 registered at Police Station Chopasni Housing Board, Jodhpur for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The first bail application being S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 15572/2023 preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant invited Court’s attention towards the backdrop facts and submitted that there is only one eyewitness, namely Ramji Manjhi (P.W.5), who during the investigation had stated that he had seen the present applicant killing the deceased (Shankar Manjhi) with the help of cement brick, however, he (eyewitness) has turned hostile, when he appeared in the witness box.
4. Learned counsel argued that since the only eyewitness has turned hostile, the prosecution case cannot be proved.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand opposed the bail application by submitting that the brick with the help of which the deceased was killed, has been recovered at the i
The court held that a hostile eyewitness significantly undermines the prosecution's case, warranting bail despite other circumstantial evidence.
Bail applications for serious offenses can be denied to prevent witness tampering, balancing individual liberty against public safety.
The court emphasized the balance between the gravity of the offence and the accused's right to liberty, allowing bail due to lengthy trial and similar circumstances of co-accused.
The court emphasized that bail should not be granted if there is a strong likelihood of witness tampering and the accused is charged with a serious offence.
Grant of Bail -Presence of the complaint is doubtful and that version of the prosecution of the complainant being eyewitness to the incident is doubtful and concocted.
The court ruled that the serious nature of the charges, potential witness tampering, and public safety concerns justified the denial of bail.
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
