Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 700

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SURAJ KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 12874 / 2024

Advocates:
Mr. S.K. Puniya, Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP, Mr. Subhash Chandra, SI

The absence of corroborative evidence from key witnesses and lack of bloodstains on the weapon justified the granting of bail, as the prosecution's case was not sufficiently supported.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, aged 19, is accused of murdering his wife, with the first bail application rejected due to lack of witness statements supporting the prosecution's case - Material witnesses denied witnessing any quarrel or assault - No bloodstains on the alleged weapon - Judicial custody and lengthy trial considered - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Principles of Bail - The court emphasized that the absence of evidence supporting the prosecution's claims can be a basis for granting bail. (Paras 9, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner faces charges under Section 302 IPC for allegedly murdering his wife. The first bail application was denied, but upon review of witness statements, which did not support the prosecution's case, a second application was filed.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the material witnesses did not corroborate the prosecution's claims, and the weapon recovered lacked bloodstains, leading to the decision to grant bail.

Issues: The primary issues were the credibility of witness statements and the sufficiency of evidence for denying bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of corroborative evidence from key witnesses and the nature of the recovered weapon justified the granting of bail, emphasizing that observations made were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C .) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.352/2023 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu for the offence under Section 302 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 the petitioner who is aged about 19 years is facing criminal trial in connection with the offence of committing murder of his wife –Masvay @ Kaloni.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.3.2024 while granting him liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statements of the material prosecution witnesses of the case viz. Suresh (PW-1), Surendra (PW-2) and Ashok (PW-3) are recorded before the competent criminal court.

5. Learned counsel submitted that Suresh, Surendra and Ashok in their statements recorded before the competent criminal court under Section 161 Cr.P.C . had stated that on the date of alleged incident, the petitioner after consuming alcohol had a quarrel with his wife (deceased) and thereafter, he had mercilessly beaten her with a blunt weapon. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of above-named witnesses recorded before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that these witnesses during their court statements have stated that they had neither seen the petitioner quarrelling with his wife nor beating her.

6. Learned counsel further contended that there is not even an iota of evidence available on record to indicate involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the alleged recovery of the blunt weapon (lathi) at the instance of the present petitioner to contend that the same was not containing any bloodstain and therefore the learned counsel submitted that had the petitioner beaten his wife mercilessly with the said weapon, the same should have contained bloodstains of the deceased.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has 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.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, learned Public Prosecutor present before the Court along with the Investigating Officer was not in a position to refute the fact that the material prosecution witnesses of the case viz. Suresh (PW-1), Surendra (PW-2) and Ashok (PW-3), during their court statements, have clearly denied the factum of witnessing the petitioner quarrelling with his wife or beating her mercilessly. They were also not in a position to refute the fact that the blunt weapon allegedly recovered at the instance of the present petitioner does not contain any bloodstains of the deceased.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the statements of the material prosecution witnesses of the case viz. Suresh (PW- 1), Surendra (PW-2) and Ashok (PW-3) recorded before the competent criminal court, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Consequently, this second bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C .) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner Suraj Kumar S/o Shri Kirshna Bahadur arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.352/2023 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document