Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 12113
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Farjand Ali, J
Rahul Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3911/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None present
For the Respondents: S.S. Rathore, DyGA
The court allowed bail based on insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to serious offenses, emphasizing the principle of not detaining individuals unnecessarily during trial.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Court analyzed Section 483 of the BNS concerning the application for bail. Facts of the Case: The accused, Rahul Kumar, was involved in a case under Section 103(1), 238(A), and 3(5) of the BNS following a murder where he was accused of aiding in disposing of a body.
Findings of Court:
The charge-sheet indicated a lack of eyewitnesses, leading the court to find that custody was unnecessary due to the potential length of trial.Facts: The petitioner was called via Instagram to assist in disposing of a body, but the Court recognized his role as potentially lesser, citing Section 238 relates to less severe punishment.
Issues: The core issue was whether the circumstances warranted bail despite the serious allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reasoned that the merit in holding the petitioner was low given the nature of evidence, stating that no useful purpose would be served by continued detention.
Result: The bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail on specified terms.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction invoked for bail under specific sections addressed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observes insufficient evidence and likelihood of long trial. (Para 4) |
| 3. court grants bail under specified conditions. (Para 5) |
Order
13/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 483 of the BNS at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
order
S.No.
Particulars of the Case
1.
FIR Number
207/2024
2.
Concerned Police Station
Chunawadh
3.
District
Sri Ganganagar
4.
Offences alleged in the FIR
Under Sections 103(1), 238(A), 3(5) of the BNS
5.
Offences added, if any
-
6.
Date of passing of impugned order
31.01.2025
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not present to argue the matter.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have gone through the contents of the charge-sheet, wherefrom it is revealing that 3 accused clobbered the deceased and after his death, the petitioner was called by making an Instagram call for helping in disposing of the body. The plea raised in the bail application is that at the best the petitioner can be an accused of screening the offender or vanishing/destroying the evidence of the offence, which is not covered as an offence of murder but under Section 238 of the BNS , which is punishable for a term not more than three years. After investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed. Certainly eye-witness account of the incident if not available. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars during the pendency of the trial as 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.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNS 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.
