[2023:RJ-JD:39323]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13987/2023 Reshma S/o Sakraram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Satsagra Semli Sanwara (R) Ps Rohida Dist. Sirohi Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail Sirohi ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Bheraram S/o Sakra, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Mota Ketar Valoriya Rohida Sirohi Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khichi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/11/2023

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:

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 and learned Public Prosecutor. No one has appeared on behalf of the complainant despite information provided to him regarding hearing of the instant bail plea.

5. Admittedly, the eye-witness account of the incident is not available. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. However, the same are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature, if the same are scrutinized in light of the golden principle laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622. Although, an effort has been made to assert that the prosecution witness Sona who was engaged with the brother of the petitioner Pratha but when she was examined under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 04.09.2023, she denied from all the allegations. As a matter of fact, no direct or indirect evidence is available on record to show the involvement of the petitioner in commission of the crime rather the case of the prosecution is totally based upon surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal principle of law.

6. Be that as it may. Any final conclusion with regard to the quality of evidence may hamper the case of the prosecution yet taking into account the totally of the facts and circumstances of the case, more specifically, the fact that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and no further evidence is supposed to be brought on record, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. The observation made hereinabove are limited for the disposal of the bail application which would have no bearance on the merits of the case during the trial.

7. 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J

203-divya/-