Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1755 (RAJ)

Ameen Shah v. State of Rajasthan, Through PP

2019-06-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This application for grant of bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 03/2019 registered at Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 302, 450 & 34 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material available on record. 3. Mr. Panwar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the case under Section 302 IPC, charge-sheet wherein has been filed against the petitioner, similarly situated/co-accused-Fajal Shah, has been enlarged on bail by this Court, vide order dated 22.05.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5424/2019. Learned counsel, inviting attention of the Court towards the said order, submits that not only the allegation levelled against the petitioner and said Fajal Shah are similar, but also there is no additional evidence against the petitioner, for which he should be refused bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor though is not in a position to point out any factual difference, but however submits that the petitioner is the main person and he had called Fajal Shah for the purpose of the commission of offence in question. 5. Upon perusal of the material available on record and statement of Rubiya-minor daughter of the deceased, this Court does not find any substantial difference so as to differentiate the petitioners fate from that of the co-accused-Fajal Shah, who has been granted benefit of bail vide order dated 22.05.2019, which reads thus: "Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that deceased - Nazma Bano wife of Iqbal Shah found dead in her house at Jamsar. It is submitted that on 2.1.2019, in the morning, the matter was reported to the police and brother of the deceased gave statements of this effect that deceased Nazma died as she fell down from the bed. Since no one complained about the death of Nazma, she was buried on the same day. However, on 5.1.2019, brother of the deceased filed a complaint while alleging that in the night of 1.1.2019, petitioner along with co-accused person Ameen Shah illegally entered into the house of the deceased and assaulted her, due to which, she died. It is stated by the complainant that he was informed about the incident by minor daughter of the deceased. However, on 5.1.2019, brother of the deceased filed a complaint while alleging that in the night of 1.1.2019, petitioner along with co-accused person Ameen Shah illegally entered into the house of the deceased and assaulted her, due to which, she died. It is stated by the complainant that he was informed about the incident by minor daughter of the deceased. On receiving the complaint, the police started investigation and arrested the petitioner and the coaccused person and filed charge-sheet against them with the allegation that on 1.1.2019, they illegally entered into the house of the deceased and thereafter, assaulted her, which resulted into her death. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime, except the statements of minor daughter of the deceased from whose statements, it is clear that at the time of the incident, her siblings, which are five in numbers, her grandmother and other persons were also present in the house. It is submitted that in view of the above fact, it is unbelievable that only one person i.e. minor daughter of the deceased witnessed the crime and none other saw it. Learned counsel has submitted that as a matter of fact, the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case on account on enmity. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and trial of the case is likely to take time. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that sufficient evidence is available on record against the petitioner to prove his involvement in the commission of crime. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, the deceased was in illicit relationship with the petitioner and on account of some dispute, the petitioner along with other co-accused person entered into her house and thereafter committed the crime. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C." 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C." 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner Ameen Shah S/o Shri Jamal Shah arrested in FIR No. 03/2019, Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner shall be released on bail; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing, as and when called upon to do so.