Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Prabhu Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15953 of 2024
Decided On : 13-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dilip Singh Udawat
For the Respondent: Urja Ram Kalbi

The absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against the accused justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of preventing unnecessary detention without risk of influencing witnesses.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner sought bail after being arrested in connection with a murder case. The court noted the absence of eyewitnesses and the lack of apprehension regarding influencing witnesses. The petitioner was granted bail based on the similarity of circumstances with a co-accused previously granted bail. (Paras 1, 6, 8)

(B) Judicial Custody - The court found that keeping the petitioner in custody would not serve any purpose as the investigation was concluded and material witnesses had been recorded. (Paras 7, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for murder charges. The co-accused had been granted bail, and the petitioner argued for similar treatment, citing the absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against him.

Findings of Court:
The court found no distinction between the petitioner and the co-accused in terms of the evidence presented. The bail was granted to prevent unnecessary detention.

Issues: The main issues included the lack of eyewitness testimony and whether the petitioner posed a risk of influencing witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without evidence of the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing, it was appropriate to grant bail, emphasizing the principle of not prejudicing the trial court's future judgment.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.153/2024, registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand , for offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused-Sajjan Singh (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.13657/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who have already been enlarged on bail.

3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

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

6. The order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court while enlarging the co-accused-Sajjan Singh is reproduced 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 F.I.R. No.153/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case in connection with the murder of one Roop Singh, owing to some previous animosity between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the complainant-Lal Singh, his father- deceased- Roop Singh went missing from house. When a search was being made by the complainant and the other villagers, he was found lying in the field with various injuries over his body. On being asked, the deceased- Roop Singh informed the complainant that he was beaten mercilessly by the petitioner, Kishan Singh @ Pappu Singh and Prabhulal Balai. As per the complainant, the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Kishan Singh @ Pappu Singh on the very next date of lodging of the FIR has committed suicide. The Investigating Agency has recovered only one blunt weapon (lathi) from an open place to show involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Though as per the prosecution, the deceased was allegedly beaten by the three persons.

Learned counsel submitted that it is surprising that though the deceased- Roop Singh died while in undergoing treatment at Government Hospital but his statements were not recorded by the police which allegedly accompanied him to the hospital. Apart from the complainant and his wife, no other witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that in their presence, the deceased- Roop Singh narrated the fact of he being beaten by the present petitioner.

Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the complainant- Lal Singh (PW.1) and his wife- Smt. Pushpa Devi (PW.2) who had allegedly seen the petitioner and other named accused persons going towards the field soon before the alleged incident have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses.

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the petitioner is in judicial custody an