Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J
Bhanwardan S/o Sh. Rughnathdan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J.
S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 2221/2024:-
1.The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.95/2020, Police Station Chakhu, District Jodhpur (Rural) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 427, 342, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 440/120B of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner on 19.01.2022, the statement of eye witness namely Jagdishdan has been recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-9. He further submits that as per the statement of material prosecution eye witness namely Jagdishdan (PW-9), Prabhudan (PW-5), Bheemdan(PW-8), there is inconsistency with the weapon with which the petitioner has inflicted the injuries to the deceased persons.
4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is material alteration and improvement in their statements from the statements which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C
The court emphasized that consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence are critical in denying bail for serious charges, including murder.
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 emphasized that the material witnesses turning hostile and the lack of prima facie material warranted the grant of bail to the accused in a murder case.
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 seriousness of the charges and the evidence against the accused are critical factors in determining bail eligibility under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court granted bail due to insufficient specific allegations against the petitioner and lack of risk of tampering with evidence.
The court considered material contradictions in the complainant's statements, the duration of injuries, and the prolonged trial process in granting bail to the petitioner.
The court emphasized the balance between the gravity of the offence and the accused's right to liberty, allowing bail due to lengthy trial and similar circumstances of co-accused.
Bail can be granted when witnesses turn hostile and cannot identify the accused, especially when the trial is expected to be lengthy.
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
