Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 28895
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
KARAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1762 / 2023
Mr. Abhishek Mehta, Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP, Mr. Digvijay Singh
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to the trivial nature of the dispute and prolonged incarceration without sufficient evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Accused-petitioner contended that no case is made out against him and incarceration is unwarranted, based on conjectures - Public Prosecutor opposed bail, asserting the case is not fit for bail - Court noted absence of prior animosity and trivial nature of the dispute leading to the incident - Medical evidence conflicted with ocular evidence regarding the cause of death - Considering the prolonged incarceration since 2021 and slow progress of the trial, bail granted. (Paras 2, 5, 6)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail is a discretionary power of the court, which must consider the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing or tampering with evidence. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner was involved in a case where he allegedly bludgeoned the victim to death over a trivial dispute regarding grazing cattle. The FIR alleged the use of a sharp weapon, but medical evidence was inconclusive regarding the cause of death. The accused has been in custody since 2021, with only four out of seventeen witnesses examined.
Findings of Court:
The court found that keeping the petitioner in custody was not justifiable given the trivial nature of the dispute and the slow progress of the trial.
Issues: The main issues were whether the accused's incarceration was warranted and the adequacy of evidence against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the nature of the dispute was trivial and that prolonged incarceration without a clear case against the accused was unjustifiable. The court also noted the conflict between medical and ocular evidence.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Order
18/01/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . at the instance of accused- petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 150/2021 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Kheroda |
| 3. | District | Udaipur |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Section 302 of the IPC |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 21.01.2023 |
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material as available on record.
5. What is emanating from the record of this case that there was no previous dispute or animosity between the petitioner and the deceased. It was a simple discord with regard to grazing of cattle in the field. On the fateful day of incident when the cattle of the victim party had entered into the field of the petitioner, he inflicted injuries to the buffalo upon which the victim Narpat Singh went to rebuke him and whereupon, it is alleged that he was bludgeoned to death. As per the FIR, Kunt was used to inflict injuries which is a sharp aged weapon. The post-martem report conducted by a daily constituted Board reflecting three lacerated wound and one abrasion. The opinion of the Medical Board is not clear as to which injuries was responsible for causing the death or whether death was the cumulative effect of all the injuries received or whether the same were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The injuries as mentioned in the post-mortem report may be caused only by a blunt object but on the contrary sharp aged weapon alleged to have been used in causing injuries and as such there is a direct conflict between medical and ocular evidence. Be that as it may, upon consideration of the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars since the year 2021 and out of 17 witnesses only, four witnesses could have examined till now. Thus, keeping the petitioner behind the bars in case which erupted on a very trivial issue would not be justifiable.
6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C . is allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
