HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18030/2021

Kadaya @ Kadu S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o

Dundipura P.s. Sapotara Dist. Karauli Rajasthan (At Present

Confined At Dist. Jail Karauli)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Malkhan Chaturvedi.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

10/11/2021

1.

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.131/2021 registered at Police Station Sapotara District Karauli

for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 34 of IPC and challan filed

for offence under Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits

that there is no eye-wtiness of the incident. The entire case of the

prosecution is based upon so-called circumstantial evidence,

however, the circumstance put forth against the petitioner is

neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. He asserted

that there is no recovery from the petitioner except the

motorcycle owned by him. He further submits that the evidence

regarding seeing the deceased last in the company of the

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-18030/2021]

petitioner was collected on 18.06.2021 and except this there is no

evidence regarding last seen. The prosecution has miserably failed

to show any motive regarding the killing of the deceased. He

further submits that deceased left the house on 18.02.2021 and

an inquest report came to be submitted by none other than father

of the deceased on 19.02.2021 wherein no allegation or doubt has

been mentioned by him. Counsel has strenuously urged that it is

revealing from the post morterm report that the cause of the

death was cardiac respiratory arrest and no visible injury was

found on the body of the deceased when the autopsy was

conducted.

3.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

4.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel

for the parties. Taking into account the totality of facts and

circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the

counsel for the petitioner and without commenting on the merits

of the matter, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the

petitioner on bail.

5.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner 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 their appearance before

the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called

upon to do so.

(FARJAND ALI),J

PREETI VALECHA /71