Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.149/2023, registered at Police Station Abu Road City, District Sirohi, for offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 302/149 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused- Manish @ Maniya (S.B . Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.12136/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2025.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused-Manish @ Maniya who has already been enlarged on bail.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

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

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

7. The order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court while enlarging the co-accused- Manish @ Maniya is reproduced below for ready reference:-

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.149/2023 registered at Police Station Abu Road, District Sirohi, for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323, 325, 307, 302/149 of IPC.

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

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the allegation against the present petitioner is of brutally assaulting the complainant and other injured persons in the incident which occurred on 25.06.2023. As per the prosecution, in the alleged incident, one Dinesh sustained head injury and succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment. This Court further prima facie finds that the complainant- Jagdish (PW-09) and injured person- Mahendra Singh (PW-08) during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since the material prosecution witnesses of the case during their Court statements have not supported the prosecution story and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of inflicting fatal injuries upon the deceased, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period particularly when the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the remaining 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 inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Manish @ Maniya S/o Gopi Chand arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.149/2023 registered at Police Station Abu Road, District Sirohi, 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.

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.”

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie that the material prosecution witnesses