The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

1. 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.70/2022 registered at Police Station Kalu, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 341, 364, 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that co-accused person namely Sita Ram (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13210/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. 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 should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sufficient material is available on record indicating the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged crime, therefore, looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court. The order dated 07.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow 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.70/2022 registered at Police Station Kalu, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 341, 364, 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC.

As per the prosecution, on 04.08.2022, at about 7:00 pm, the deceased Omprakash left the house on his motorbike and went towards his fields. When he reached at a distance of about three kilometers from his village, a white coloured swift car bearing registration No.GJ36- B-2178 came around and four persons abducted him. The entire incident was witnessed by one Babulal S/o Sanwat Ram. Later on, the dead body of the deceased Omprakash was recovered from the road near Gogamedi on 05.08.2022 at 6:00 am.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence as available on record in form of tower locations and call details of the petitioner as well as the co-accused and disclosure statements made by them during their police custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not even been named in the FIR. Learned counsel vehemently contended that as per the prosecution, one blunt weapon (danda), mobile phone and clothes allegedly worn by him at the time of commission of the alleged crime have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner in pursuance of the informations furnished by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FSL report, learned counsel submitted that though the blood stains found on the blunt weapon (danda) as well as the clothes allegedly recovered at his instance are reported to be of human origin but the blood grouping of the same did not match with that of the deceased. Thus, the same has remained inconclusive.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of the Court towards the statements of the sole eye witness of the incident namely Babulal S/o Sanwar Ram (PW-01) to contend that the aforesaid witness during his Court statements categorically denied the factum of having seen the petitioner abducting the deceased.

Similarly, drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the investigating officer recorded befor