At the stage of considering a bail application, the court does not conduct a minute scrutiny of evidence or evaluate the probative value of witnesses, particularly when primary witnesses support the prosecution's case in their examination-in-chief.

Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 454/2023 registered at Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the FIR was lodged against the present petitioner and one Nisha. In the FIR, it was specifically alleged that the petitioner and Nisha caused injuries to the deceased Keshanta with the aid of a knife. It is also contended that, after investigation, police did not find any evidence of commission of offence against the other named person i.e. Nisha and exonerated her. It is also contended that the material witnesses namely PW-1 Sanjana, PW-2 Monika and PW-3 Krishna have been examined before the Court. It is also contended that PW-1 Sanjana, though in her examination-in-chief have stated that the petitioner and Nisha caused injuries to her mother, however, in the cross-examination, she has deposed that her mother was stabbed by Nisha. Similarly, PW-2 Monika, who is also the daughter of deceased, in her examination-in-chief has stated that the petitioner and Nisha caused injuries with the aid of knife to the deceased Keshanta, however, in her cross-examination, she has stated that the knife was in the hand of Nisha. The other eye witness PW-3 Krishna, who is the son of the deceased, in his examination-in-chief have attributed injuries caused to deceased Keshanta to present petitioner and Nisha, in the cross-examination, he has stated that when he reached to the place of occurrence, both the accused fled away from the place of incident. It is also contended that the other material witnesses PW-4 Pappu, PW-5 Veer Singh and injured witness PW-6 Sunil Kumar have not supported the prosecution story, even PW-6 Sunil Kumar who was allegedly got injured by the present petitioner, denied the prosecution story that the petitioner caused injuries with the aid of knife to him. It is also contended that the other witnesses PW-7 Ghanshyam, PW-8 Pravesh, PW-19 Santosh and PW-20 Yogesh in their examination-in-chief, though have stated that the petitioner caused injuries with the aid of knife to the injured PW-6 Sunil Kumar, however, so far stated that the petitioner caused fatal injury with the aid of knife to deceased Keshanta. Their statements are relevant only upto the extent of other injured PW-6 Sunil Kumar. It is also contended that PW-16, the concerned medical jurists who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, in his cross-examination have accepted the suggestion that the injuries sustained to deceased may come on falling from stairs. It is further contended that out of total 27 witnesses, the prosecution has examined 21 witnesses. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 04.11.2023 and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that it is alleged against the petitioner that he caused the death of the deceased Keshanta by causing injuries with the aid of knife and also caused injuries to PW-6 Sunil Kumar, the deceased Keshanta died in the hospital. It is also contended that the material eye witnesses in their examination in chief have clearly stated that the petitioner caused injuries with the aid of knife to the deceased. It is also contended that at the instance of petitione