Bail should be granted unless there is a substantial risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing, particularly when the investigation is complete.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C . has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.75/2024 registered at Police Station Pahada, Dist.Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.

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

3. After arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the bail application filed on behalf of Petitioner No.2- Smt Sharmila Devi W/o Naveen Kumar, but he seeks leave of the Court to file a fresh bail application on her behalf after the statements of the children are recorded.

4. Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner No.2- Smt Sharmila Devi W/o Naveen Kumar is dismissed as not pressed with liberty prayed for. It is expected from the trial court that the statements of the children will be recorded on priority basis.

5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the material prosecution witnesses viz. Uma Parmar and Kartik Parmar in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C . have levelled specific allegation of murder of their mother- Smt. Kali Devi by strangulating her, against the co-accused persons namely Naveen and Sharmila Devi. This Court further prima facie finds that the petitioner No.1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja who is aged about 65 years is in judicial custody. The petitioner No.1 Hokla @Harish S/o Hanja does not have any criminal antecedents.

6. In the opinion of this Court, since Uma Parmar and Kartik Parmar in their statements have made specific allegation of murder of their mother against co-accused persons, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner No.-1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja behind the bars particularly when the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner No.1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja influencing material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner No.1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja deserve to be accepted.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . is filed on behalf of petitioner No.1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner No.1 Hokla @ Harish S/o Hanja, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.75/2024 registered at Police Station Pahada, Dist. Udaipur, 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 trial.

8. 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.