The court granted bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and the long duration since the incident, determining no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.

Order

This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.46/2024 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused Mahendra Singh Verma @ Mohendra Singh (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.13165/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Mahendra Singh Verma @ Mohendra Singh who has already been enlarged on bail.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan against her has already been filed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that the co-accused Mahendra Singh Verma @ Mohendra Singh and Bhim Singh have already been enlarged on bail.

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

The order dated 19.11.2024 passed by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Mahendra Singh Verma @ Mohendra Singh is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

“ 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.46/2024, registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur City East, for offence under Sections 302, 201 & 120-B of IPC.

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

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 01.05.2024, a truck bearing registration No.HR-38-F-4832 suddenly caught fire. Two completely burnt male skeletons which were identified by the co-accused to be of one Chandrbhan and his son Balesh i.e. main accused and the owner of the truck and his cleaner were recovered from the cabin of the burned truck. The petitioner who is brother of Balesh also confirmed that one of the burnt male skeleton to be of his brother i.e. Balesh. After about 20 years, when Balesh came to be arrested by Delhi Police, it came to the knowledge of the Investigating Agency that a false story has been plotted by Balesh and his close relatives so as to take benefit of the insurance claim and other death benefits of Balesh.

4. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a false criminal case. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has played any active role in hatching the conspiracy for taking benefit of the insurance claim and other death benefits of Balesh. The Investigation in the matter has already been completed and the challan has already been filed against the present petitioner. No purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, for an incident which occurred 20 years ago.

5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; 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.

6. Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the matter relates to an incident which took place about 20 years back; prima facie the benefit of insurance and other death benefits were allegedly taken by the co-accused Balesh and not by present petitioner. The prosecution has not shown any apprehen