Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 87 (RAJ)

Mitha Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-12

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 188/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Pachpadra 3. District Barmer 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 365 & 302 IPC 5. Offences added, if any Section 342 IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order 18.11.2023 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material as well as the challan papers made available to this Court. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, it is observed that in the FIR the complainant-Deva Ram has alleged that on fateful day of incident i.e. 15.07.2023 a call was received that the petitioner and his aides made an assault over the Paras (deceased), who bludgeoned to death. He alleged that his brother Paras was brutally bashed up by the accused-persons including the petitioner and the dead body of his brother was lying in mortuary of the Nahata Hospital, Balotra. Based upon the information supplied by the complainant Deva Ram, a thorough investigation got conducted. The witnesses related to the deceased family reiterated the same as alleged in the FIR but on the contrary a Sub-Inspector named Sura Ram, who was then deployed at Police Station Pachpadra stated to the Investigating Officer that in the intervening night of 15/16.07.2023 he received a telephonic information alleging that a man had barged into the house of Joraram and the immediate assistance of the police was sought. He says that upon the said information, he immediately rushed to the spot and found the deceased in a seriously wounded condition. He says that upon the said information, he immediately rushed to the spot and found the deceased in a seriously wounded condition. He was tied with a rope. It was informed to him that the deceased had climbed to the terrace of the house of Rawataram in the mid night upon which, his daughter Manisha shouted screamingly and upon which the deceased Paras tried to run away from the spot and in that course, he fell down on the earth from terrace. He was apprehended and police assistance was called. Similar to his statement, a detailed endorsement had been made in the daily journal diary of Police Station Pachpadra. Now, there are two sets of evidence viz., one is alleging active role of the petitioner in commission of crime and the other totally exonerating him rather no whisper regarding his presence. Prima facie there is a substance in the submission that the family members of the deceased were not at the spot and, therefore, their eye-witness account cannot be believed. At the same time, this Court feels that the entries made in the daily roznamcha of Police Station Pachpadra as well as the statement of Sub- Inspector Sura Ram, who is an independent witness, should not be disbelieved at the stage of hearing of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 6. It is nigh well settled law that while entertaining a bail plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C., no comment should be made on the credence and evidentiary value of the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation as the same may influence the course of trial. 7. In this view of the matter and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that charge sheet has been filed and there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, there are no factors at play so as to reject the bail application, thus, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 8. At a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. 8. At a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction and that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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.