Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 630 (RAJ)

Anuj Gurjar v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-02-28

FARJAND ALI

body2023
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order dated impugned passed by concerned court below for the offences under Sections 302, 34, 120B and 201 IPC and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act in FIR No. 108/2021 registered at Police Station Atalband, District Bharatpur. 2. Ms. Radha, sister of the petitioner is present before the Court and tried her level best to convince this Court to the pages of the challan papers and other material available on record. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The case relates to a very unfortunate incident where a doctor spouses have brutally been killed by the two assailants in a broad day light and that too in a market place when couple was going to their destination. It is the story of the prosecution that when the doctor couple was going through the car, suddenly, a motorcycle came near them. Two persons who were on motorcycle could not be identified as the persons have had kept their face veiled. The assailants opened firing on to the couple, as a necessary consequence of which the spouses died. It is not disputed that the spouses were killed by gunshot injuries. While conducting autopsy, a foreign metallic body marked as 'A' was taken from the body of the deceased. It is alleged that country made pistol was recovered from the accused Anuj which was marked as 'G'. As per the submissions raised in the bail application, the factum of recovery is a questionable and disputed fact yet if tentatively at this stage, it is taken that the country made pistol 'G' was recovered from accused then also it is required to be shown a direct nexus between the foreign metallic body recovered front he dead body of the deceased marked 'A' and country made pistol 'G'. The Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 22.07.2021 clearly opined that the agency failed to find any definite link between mark 'A' and mark 'G' that is alleged recovered pistol and the bullet taken from the body of the deceased. The Forensic Science Laboratory report dated 22.07.2021 clearly opined that the agency failed to find any definite link between mark 'A' and mark 'G' that is alleged recovered pistol and the bullet taken from the body of the deceased. Another aspect of the case would be that it is alleged that a person was doing reki at the hospital of the deceased prior to the incident, however, as per the charge-sheet, it was not the applicant who is before this Court. Endeavour has been made to establish the fact of issuance of certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, this Court has serious reservation on the admissibility of the certificate and the manner in which it was issued, however, with a view to maintain judicial discipline, this Court refrains from making any observation or passing any comment on the legality and admissibility of the certificate issued aforesaid. It is admitted fact situation that there is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence although neither the circumstances put forth against the petitioner are definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. As per the cardinal principles propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, through various judicial pronouncements, that in the cases which are based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and it should exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. Suspicion however it may grave cannot take the place of proof. There is long and inevitable distance between "may be" and "must be". No doubt it is a very gruesome murder and this Court also feels that may be the accused have a motive behind the murder of the doctor duo but the same is not sufficient enough to bring home the guilt. What would be the evidentiary value of the material available on record? This court does not wish to pass comments on it because the same is the task to be undertaken by trial Judge after a full fledged trial. Yet in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. This court does not wish to pass comments on it because the same is the task to be undertaken by trial Judge after a full fledged trial. Yet in the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Anuj Gurjar S/o Shri Samandar Singh 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.