Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2506 (RAJ)

Amrit Lal v. State

2019-09-17

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2019
JUDGMENT Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.89/2017 of Sirohi Kotwali Police Station, District Sirohi, for the offence punishable under Sections 341 and 302/34 of IPC. 3. The first bail application was rejected by this Court on 20.6.2019 as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court after recording of the statement of the sole eye witness. The statement of sole eye witness PW15 Nimba Ram has been recorded on 9.8.2019. Hence, this second bail application. 4. The statement of sole eye witness PW15 Nimba Ram has been recorded on 9.8.2019 and he has turned hostile. The statement of constable Arja Ram reflects that CCTV footage only contains a fact of duster vehicle and not of the vehicle of the deceased. The conclusion report filed by the police clearly mentions that after investigation, there is a sole eye witness to the occurrence and i.e. Nimba Ram @ Nilesh. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the initial complaint made by Hemant Kumar Khandelwal which is against unknown person. Counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to the proceedings drawn under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 8.6.2017, 9.6.2017, 12.6.2017, 13.6.2017 etc. The proceedings reflect the statement of the accused in which the recovery has been indicated from different locations weakening the case of the prosecution to a large extent. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he made enquiries from I.O. who has informed that no direct CCTV footage was available of the incident in question. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the proceedings under Section 27 of the Evidence Act but has not been able to explain the conflicting versions given by the accused. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 9. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Amrit Lal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.89/2017 of Sirohi Kotwali Police Station, District Sirohi, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.