Delay in filing an FIR and contradictions in witness statements can undermine the prosecution's case, leading to approval for bail despite serious allegations.

ORDER :

1. First bail application i.e. S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11798/2024, came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.9.2024. Thereafter, due to change in circumstance and subsequent events taken place, this second bail application has been filed.

2. The instant second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Mahendra Singh S/o. Roopa Ram connection with FIR No.119/2024 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jalore, District Jalore for offence under Sections 302 /34 IPC , against the rejection order dated 15.4.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jalore in Criminal Misc. Case No.157/2025 (Sessions Case No.56/2024, State Vs. Mahendra Singh), whereby the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

3. Before arguing on bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that investigation in the case is complete and police has filed charge-sheet on 09.6.2024.

4. Counsel Mr. Gaurav Singh & Mr. Sanjay Khedar stated that the complainant alleged in the impugned FIR that petitioner and one Uda Ram killed his brother-in-law namely deceased Sunil Kumar S/o. Dharam Chand by giving him poison in cold drink while he was sitting alongwith him, on account of which, he initially felt uneasy and then died in hospital. He lodged impugned FIR on 12.4.2024 of an incident stated to have occurred on 18.4.2023. There is no justification in the impugned FIR as well as in entire charge-sheet, as filed by the police, against the delay. He further submitted that initially FIR was lodged against the present petitioner, one Uda Ram and other un-known person, however, charge-sheet came to be filed against the present petitioner only.

5. Counsel further submitted that the alleged incident, as stated by complainant-Jitendra Kumar S/o. Ramdayal (brother-in-law of the deceased) for an alleged incident dated 18.4.2023, the father of the deceased gave a hand-written report to the SHO, P.S. Kotwali, District Jalore for taking legal action in respect of unnatural death of his son.

6. Counsel specially submitted that this complaint dated 19.4.2023 was made against un-known person. The relevant lines of the complaint dated 19.4.2023 are :-

7. On the said complaint dated 19.4.2023, police recorded statements of four persons, namely, Dharam Chand Yadav (father of deceased), Manoj Kumar S/o. Pema Ram, Sharwan Kumar S/o. Satyapal and Kapil Kumar S/o. Hawa Singh. By referring to the statements of above-mentioned four persons, as recorded by the police under Section 174 Cr. P.C., with their due signature at the bottom of statement, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the four persons did not name the present petitioner. The relevant line of statement of father of the deceased i.e. Dharam Chand is:-

8. On the basis of the above statement, learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner at all has committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR, as lodged on 18.4.2024, then the fact as stated in the FIR would have find place in the first report as made by father of the deceased to the police i.e. 19.4.2023. As all the above persons did not name any person including the present petitioner and Uda Ram, therefore, no FIR was registered, however, samples were sent for the Viscera Report.

9. Counsel further submitted that the FSL Report of viscera dated 04.10.2023 was received by the police, in which, following analysis