Bail may be granted when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2024 registered at Police Station Sankda, District Jaisalmer, for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC and Sections 110, 123 and 49 of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Sugani @ Sugana (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.14661/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not worse than the case of above named co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused Sugani @ Sugana has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“This 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.114/2024, registered at Police Station Sankda, District Jaisalmer, for offences under Sections 110 and 123/49 of BNS.

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

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant- Gomaram suspected that his son-in-law- Harkharam in a pre-planned manner made his own son (i.e. grandson of the complainant) consume poisonous substance and that about 7-8 ago years, his grand daughter, who was about 9 months old, died in unnatural circumstances, for which also he strongly suspect him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a bare perusal of the FIR would indicate that the petitioner has not played any active role in commission of the alleged crime. No material has been placed on record to indicate that the petitioner has conspired with the co-accused Harkharam to commit the alleged crime.

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 may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion. Prima facie, no material is available on record indicating that she has conspired with the co-accused- Harkharam to commit the alleged crime.

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.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner- Sugani @ Sugana W/o Pappu Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.114/2024, registered at Police Station Sankda, District Jaisalmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for their appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

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.”

7.