Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31792
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, J
BIJENDRA @ BABRU @ BABBAR S/O LATE ABHAY SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 12699 / 2024
Mr. Deshraj Sain, Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, P.P., Mr. Harendra Singh
The existence of hostile witnesses does not negate the gravity of allegations, and fraudulent conduct in seeking bail can lead to denial of bail.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested in connection with FIR No.0453/2019 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC, sought bail on grounds of hostile witnesses and prolonged custody - The court noted the gravity of allegations and the evidentiary value of witnesses, emphasizing that hostility does not negate the seriousness of the case. (Paras 1-4)
(B) Bail - Nature of allegations - The court considered the severity of the charges and the circumstances surrounding the petitioner's prior bail application, which was dismissed due to strong evidence against him, including a dying declaration and recovery of a weapon. (Paras 5-7)
(C) Fraud upon the court - The court addressed the petitioner's fraudulent use of forged medical documents to obtain interim bail, leading to further legal consequences. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought bail after being arrested for serious offences, arguing that key witnesses had turned hostile. However, the court highlighted the existing evidence against him, including witness testimonies and a dying declaration.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the bail application, citing the gravity of the allegations and evidence against the petitioner, while also requesting expedited trial proceedings due to the length of incarceration.
Issues: The primary issues were the credibility of hostile witnesses, the gravity of the allegations, and the implications of fraudulent conduct in seeking bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the existence of hostile witnesses does not diminish the strength of the prosecution's case, and fraudulent behavior in seeking bail warrants a denial of such requests.
Result: The third bail application is dismissed.
Judgment / Order
The present third bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. (previously 439 Cr.P.C .). The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0453/2019 registered at Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Police District Bhiwadi) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 147, 148, 149 & 302 IPC and later on for the offence(s) under Section(s) 302 & 34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the statement of Anand Kumar (PW-17) and Smt. Banar Devi (PW-22), would submit that both have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. Referring to and relying upon the cross-examination of Shri Dinesh Kumar (PW- 21)-the Investigating Officer, learned counsel submits that he has stated that the witness Anand Kumar had reached the spot first and the remaining witnesses followed him. He submits that the so called eye witnesses are either employee of the deceased or his family members and are not trustworthy. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2019, trial of the case is likely to take time and prays for his release on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer.
Heard. Considered.
The first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 appreciating that the prosecution witnesses namely S/Shri Iswar Singh (PW-1) Lakhmichand (PW-2) have categorically stated in their examination-in-chief that the deceased was hit by the petitioner with an iron hammer and there was recovery of the blood stained iron hammer on the information furnished by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It was also appreciated that some of prosecution witnesses have stated that the deceased made dying declaration before them levelling specific allegation against the petitioner. Merely because some of the eye witnesses have turned hostile, it will not dilute the gravity of allegation and the supporting evidence existing on record. The evidentiary value of the eye witnesses, if they happen to be employee/family members of the deceased, is to be examined by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage and their testimony cannot be discarded by this Court at this stage only on this count while considering the bail application.
There is one disturbing feature in the instant case. The petitioner has moved SB Criminal Miscellaneous Second (Interim) Bail Application No.15789/2023 alongwith the medical documents to reflect that his wife-Smt. Manju was advised uterus cyst operation and her condition was critical and surgery was scheduled on 22.01.2024. In view thereof, this Court was pleased to extend him benefit of interim bail for a period of ten days vide order dated 19.01.2024 which was availed by him. However, later on, it transpired that he had sought the benefit of interim bail playing fraud upon the Court inasmuch as the medical documents submitted by him alongwith the interim bail application were found to be forged and fabricated whereupon, an FIR No. 404/2024 was registered against him and co-accused persons at the Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District Alwar wherein, he has been arrested with the co-accused persons and the investigation is pending.
In view of the nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioner, the evidence on record as also in view of the fact that he had availed the benefit of interim bail from this Court playing fraud upon it; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The third bail application is dismissed accordingly.
However, looking to period of his incarceration, learned trial Court is requested to expedite trial and conclude it as early as possible.
