Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
IMRAN KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 11646 / 2024
Order :
1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.247/2024, registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 302, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioners and the co-accused- Nadeem had attacked the deceased on the date of the alleged incident in a predetermined manner with blunt weapons (lathis).
4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the complainant and other eye- witnesses namely Mustafa Khan, Mohd. Subhan and Firoz Khan recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, on the date of the alleged incident co- accused Nadeem hit the deceased- Habibullah on his nasal passage with a blunt weapon (stick). When the deceased Habibullah fell down, co-accused Nadeem took hold of his hair and hit his head hard on the ground (interlocking tiles of the road).
5. Drawing further attention of the Court towards the FSL report dated 28.08.2024 prepared by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner, learned counsel submitted that on none of the blunt weapons (lathis/dandas) recovered at the instance of the present petitioners, presence of human blood has been detected.
6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been roped in a criminal case without there being any direct/circumstantial evidence available on record against them.
7. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are 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-petitioners.
8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the presents petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that as per the postmortem report of the deceased- Habibullah, his cause of death was Cardio-Respiratory Failure due to head injury. This Court further prima facie finds that the material prosecution witnesses of the case, in their statements have levelled specific allegation of hitting the head of the deceased on the ground by holding his hair against the co-accused Nadeem. This Court further prima facie finds that as per the FSL report dated 28.08.2024, no human blood has been detected on the lathis/dandas recovered at the instance of the present petitioners. The investigation against the petitioners has already been concluded and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case, they are enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
10. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (1) Imran Khan S/o Akbar Ali, (2) Akhatar Hussain S/o Shahsawar, (3) Jakir Hussain S/o Alladita, (4) Salman Khan S/o Akbar Ali and (5) Allarakha S/o Noorhasan, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.247/2024, registered at Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the sati
Bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence against the accused and no apprehension of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The court granted bail despite serious allegations against co-accused, emphasizing the absence of specific charges against petitioners and the lengthy trial process.
The court granted bail based on the absence of weapons, lack of witness intimidation, and the delay in trial not attributable to the petitioners.
The court granted bail based on the lack of substantial evidence against the petitioners and the nature of the allegations, emphasizing the importance of judicial discretion in bail applications.
Bail may be granted when injuries are grievous but not life-threatening, investigation is complete, and no flight risk exists.
Bail can be granted when allegations are not specific and co-accused have been released, reflecting the principle of equality in legal treatment.
A subsequent bail application must show substantial changes in circumstances to be considered, otherwise it is treated as a review of the earlier rejection.
The court established that the presence of forensic evidence and the recovery of a weapon can be sufficient grounds to deny bail, even in the absence of direct accusations in the F.I.R.
The absence of eye-witnesses and reliance on conjecture justified the granting of bail, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
Bail may be granted when material witnesses turn hostile and no weapon is recovered, despite serious allegations.
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
