The right to bail is affirmed, emphasizing that no individual should suffer indefinite pre-trial incarceration without due judicial process, particularly when evidence against the accused is lacking.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR are that on 10.05.2022, at about 11:15 AM, the complainant Hajariram lodged a written report before Smt. Manjeet Kaur, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Nokha, at the Mortuary Room of PBM Hospital, Bikaner. In his report, he averred that he resides along with his family in a dhani situated within his agricultural fields at Himmatser. His daughter Geeta had been married to Om Prakash, son of Jeevaraj Bishnoi, resident of village Kanwaliser, District Nagaur. However, since Om Prakash is deaf, mute, and mentally incapacitated, Geeta has been residing at her parental home.

It was further alleged that Jeevaraj, father-in-law of Geeta, had persistently been coercing the complainant’s family to send Geeta with him and had, on multiple occasions, issued dire threats of abduction and annihilation in the event of non-compliance. On the evening of 09.05.2022, the complainant and his family members retired to bed after dinner in their dhani.

2.1. At about 3:00 to 3:30 AM on 10.05.2022, three vehicles arrived and halted in front of their dhani. Upon hearing the commotion, the complainant observed that Jeevaraj s/o Kojaram, Bhanwarlal s/o Kojaram, Shivnarayan s/o Kojaram, Sunil s/o Shivnarayan, Rajendra s/o Jeevaraj, Poonam s/o Shivnarayan, Ramsingh s/o Shivnarayan, Richhpal s/o Devilal Bishnoi, Hariram s/o Ramkaran, Dhanraj s/o Ramkaran, Kailash s/o Rajaram Bishnoi, and four to five unidentified accomplices forcibly intruded into the premises.

2.2. The assailants were armed Jeevaraj carried a pistol, Bhanwarlal and Shivnarayan possessed guns, Rajendra was armed with a pistol, while the others wielded barsiyas and lathis. Without any provocation, they opened indiscriminate fire. The complainant’s son Rameshwarlal, in a bid to escape, was targeted by Jeevaraj, Rajendra, and Shivnarayan, who discharged their firearms, causing multiple gunshot wounds on his back, resulting in his collapse.

2.3. Thereafter, Bhanwarlal and Dhanraj fired shots towards the complainant, Sharmila (wife of Rameshwarlal), Manju (daughter of Rameshwarlal), Sachin (son of Rameshwarlal), and the complainant’s wife Dhudi, who narrowly escaped by concealing themselves in the darkness. As Geeta was away pursuing her studies and could not be located, the miscreants fled the scene. Upon reaching Rameshwarlal, the complainant found him lying lifeless, having succumbed to multiple firearm injuries sustained during the assault. On the basis of the above, the aforesaid FIR has been filed and petitioner alongwith other co-accused were arrested. Hence the instant bail application.

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and peruse