Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2024 for serious offences, sought bail citing co-accused's release on bail as a precedent - The court noted that investigation was complete, and no recovery was pending from the petitioner - The prosecution failed to demonstrate any risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 4, 6, 8)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized that the decision to grant bail is based on the facts and circumstances of each case, particularly the completion of investigation and absence of recovery from the accused. (Paras 5, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for multiple serious offences, including abduction and extortion, and claimed to be falsely implicated. The co-accused had been granted bail previously, and the petitioner argued for similar treatment due to the lengthy trial process.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the investigation was complete, and the prosecution did not show any risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case and the precedent set by the co-accused's bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the completion of the investigation and lack of evidence for witness tampering justified granting bail, emphasizing that each case must be evaluated on its own merits.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.116/2024 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Sanchore (Now Jalore), for offences under Sections 147, 458, 323, 364A, 395, 307, 384, 386, 355, 342/149 and 120B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Suresh Kumar (S.B. Cr. Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.13412/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.11.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from that of co-accused Suresh Kumar who has already been enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is 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-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that co-accused Suresh Kumar has already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. The order dated 05.11.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2024, registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Sanchore, for offences under Sections 147, 458, 323, 364-A, 395, 307, 384, 386, 355, 342/149 & 120-B of IPC.

The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9175/2024) filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court as not pressed while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after filing of the charge sheet vide order dated 20.09.2024.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, on 4.2.2024, the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons namely Shrawan @ Gopa and 8-10 persons abducted the complainant and thereafter, brutally beaten him. They also captured his obscene video and snatched Rs.18,000/- for consuming smack. As per prosecution, the petitioner alongwith co-accused persons demanded Rs.50,00,000/- as ransom from the complainant failing to which, he would be killed.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 7.7.2024, investigation against him has already been completed, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that investigation in the matter has already been completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the competent criminal court; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner; no obscene video allegedly captured by the accused persons for blackmailing/threatening the complainant has been recovered; the accused persons have not even been charge-sheeted for the offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses 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 inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner

Click Here to Read the rest of this document