Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SARWAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 14125 / 2024
Order :
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.141/2023, registered at Police Station Kaparda, Jodhpur Rural, for offences under Sections 302/34 of IPC; and Sections 19/21 of POCSO Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with the murder of the deceased- ‘S’, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the mother of the minor deceased alongwith the present petitioner were annoyed with the deceased owing to her love affairs with the co-accused- Rakesh. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and the co-accused persons had killed the minor deceased by strangulating her and thereafter, her body was thrown into a water tank (tanka). Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the wallet and the Aadhar Card of the petitioner were recovered from the water tank from where the body of the deceased was recovered. Learned counsel submitted that merely the recoveries of the wallet and the Aadhar Card of the petitioner from the place of the incident are not sufficient to indicate the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime.
4. Learned counsel submitted that the material prosecution witnesses of the case viz. Complainant- Goparam (PW.4), Shrawan Kumar (PW.3), Rakesh (PW.5), Elchi Devi (PW.6), Omprakash S/o Motiram (PW.7), Omprakash S/o Hukamaram (PW.8), Javrilal (PW.10), Menaka (PW.11), Rampal (PW.13) and Ramuram (PW.14) during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. Learned counsel submitted that since the material prosecution witnesses of the case during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile, the chances of the petitioner getting convicted are very bleak in the present case.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused- Rakesh (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1080/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.04.2024. Learned counsel contended that since the petitioner has been implicated in the present case only on the basis of suspicion, the petitioner, who is in judicial custody deserves to be enlarged on bail particularly keeping in view the fact that the material prosecution witnesses of the case during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses of the case have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and so also the fact that the above named material prosecution witnesses of the case during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.
7. 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.
8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C .(483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Sarwan Kumar S/o Hiraram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.141/2023, registered at Police Station Kaparda, Jodhpur Rural, 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 before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the
The grant of bail is justified when material prosecution witnesses turn hostile, indicating insufficient evidence for conviction.
The absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against the accused justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of preventing unnecessary detention without risk of influencing witnesses.
The court granted bail based on the lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses, significantly reducing the likelihood of conviction.
The court's decision was based on the lack of incriminating evidence exclusively within the knowledge of the accused-petitioners and the lack of support from the star prosecution witness.
Bail can be granted when co-accused are released and specific allegations against the petitioner are lacking, considering the duration of judicial custody.
The court established that doubts in the prosecution's case, particularly from the victim's testimony, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court's decision to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was influenced by the consideration of the statements recorded in the charge-sheet and the conclusion of the Police after the investigatio....
Bail should be granted unless there is a substantial risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing, particularly when the investigation is complete.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence and co-accused released.
Bail granted due to victim's hostile testimony undermining prosecution's case and consideration of judicial custody duration.
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
