Bail may be granted when the prosecution's charge-sheet is contradicted by the testimonies of eye-witnesses in court, rendering the prima facie involvement of the accused doubtful.

Order

This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.178/2025 registered at Police Station Chitalvana, District Jalore for the offence under Sections 105 , 115(2) & 117(2) of BNS, 2023.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case FIR was lodged by one Harish @ Harikishan (PW-1), and Chuna Ram, Naina Ram, Navla Ram, Deva Ram were named as accused. It was alleged that the above-named persons came in a White coloured car alongwith 10-12 other persons and attacked them. It is stated that the vehicle was being driven by Chuna Ram and he drove-over Wali Devi, who died and other persons, namely, Bhanwari Devi and Sadram received injuries. It is submitted that after investigation all these persons were given a clean chit and the Investigating Agency has filed the charge-sheet against the present petitioner and and it was stated that the petitioner was driving a Black Thar Jeep and the alleged incident was caused by him. Hence, he was held responsible for the injuries caused, which resulted into death of Wali Devi and challan was only filed against him.

Strangely enough, all the other persons who were named in the FIR were given a clean chit. He submits that thereafter after filing of challan, now the statement of complainant-Harish @ Hari Kishan (PW-1) and injured Bhanwari Devi (PW-2) as well as eye-witness Sadaram have been recorded.

It is stated that the witnesses have now again come out with the true picture before the learned trial court and they have stuck to their original version, as stated in the FIR. Before the court they have specifically named Chuna Ram, Naina Ram, Navla Ram and Deva to have come of the White coloured car and running over Wali Devi, which caused her death and also caused grievous injuries to Bhanwari Devi and Sada Ram. It is specifically stated that Chuna Ram was driving the vehicle. Hence, he submits that the entire investigation is flawed and in light of the statements now recorded, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail and he has been unnecessarily kept behind the bars and has been falsely implicated. The trial of case is likely to take a long time, thus, it was prayed that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant however is not in a position to dispute that the petitioner was not named either in the FIR or in the court statements.

This Court has considered the arguments raised, gone through challan papers; as well as the statements recorded of the above-named witnesses.

The comparative assessment assessment of the FIR as well as court statements and the charge-sheet filed, shows that the petitioner was never named in the incident. As per the first version, the alleged vehicle was driven by Chuna Ram, which was a white coloured car, but however, the Investigating Agency had involved the petitioner showing the Black coloured Thar Jeep to be driven by him. However, in the court statements of Harish (PW-1), Sukhram (PW-2) and Sadram (PW-3) and Narayan Ram (PW-4) clearly shows that the white coloured car was driven by Chuna Ram, who ran over Wali Devi. In the cross-examination they have specifically stated that the petitioner-Sachin @ Tikla was not present at the time of the incident and he never caused any such incident and that no such Black Colored Thar was involved.

In view of the observations made above, this Court finds prima facie involvement of the petitioner on the face of it becomes doubtful and it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Hence considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view of the fact that conclusion of the trial of case is likely to take time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the peti