Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 930 (RAJ)

Daulat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2024-07-04

FARJAND ALI

body2024
ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.130/2023, Police Station Banera, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 302 of the IPC & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.150/2024, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant. 3. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant - Shri. Ravinder Acharya as well as perused the material as made available to this Court. 5. The eye-witness account of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon so-called circumstantial evidence put forth against the accused. One of the circumstances on the basis of which the appellant was arrested would be the recovery of blood smeared clothes from the possession of the appellant. Both the witnesses of the recovery of the blood smeared clothes are Police Officers and a serious question would arise as to why no independent witness was not taken together or made a witness of such important piece of evidence which is the basis of the prosecution. Interestingly, P.W.-5 (Jai Singh) who is Head Constable and is a witness of the recovery has been examined as P.W.-5 in the trial and has deposed that the place of recovery was not Malhan, Bhilwara and this fact has wrongly been mentioned in Ex.-P/9, the seizure memo. Interestingly, P.W.-5 (Jai Singh) who is Head Constable and is a witness of the recovery has been examined as P.W.-5 in the trial and has deposed that the place of recovery was not Malhan, Bhilwara and this fact has wrongly been mentioned in Ex.-P/9, the seizure memo. When the basis of the detention of the accused is the recovery of the blood smeared clothes only and when serious doubt appears in the evidence aforementioned, then a strong arguable case is made out in favour of the accused. As a rule of law and rule of prudence as well, the panch witnesses of the recovery should be made from the locality where the memo is prepared for the purpose of showing transparency in the investigation, it is expected that the panch witnesses should be a public man instead of a police officer subordinate to the person making seizure. When anomaly and serious discrepancy appears in between the testimony of panch witnesses and in the seizure memo, then a good case is made out in favour of the accused at least for the purpose of bail. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Mousam Singha Roy & Ors. v. State of West Bengal - (2003) 12 SCC 377 has propounded that the panch witnesses are supposed to vouchsafe the recovery and it is not sufficient that they appended signatures on the seizure memo. The another circumstance as projected by the prosecution is the motive of the appellant to kill the deceased, however, no concrete evidence has been placed on record in this regard. It is alleged that the appellant was having illicit relationship with the deceased, then a question would arise as to what were the circumstances in which he may think of killing his beloved. 6. Be that as it may, the trial is still going on and therefore, taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail in favour of the appellant. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond 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 and as and when called upon to do so.