Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 87 (RAJ)

Prabhu Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-01-13

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : 1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.153/2024, registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand , for offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused-Sajjan Singh (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No.13657/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.12.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who have already been enlarged on bail. 3. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. The order dated 06.12.2024 passed by this Court while enlarging the co-accused-Sajjan Singh is reproduced below for ready reference:- “This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.153/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 447, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case in connection with the murder of one Roop Singh, owing to some previous animosity between the parties. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye witness of the incident. Learned counsel submitted that as per the complainant-Lal Singh, his father- deceased- Roop Singh went missing from house. When a search was being made by the complainant and the other villagers, he was found lying in the field with various injuries over his body. On being asked, the deceased- Roop Singh informed the complainant that he was beaten mercilessly by the petitioner, Kishan Singh @ Pappu Singh and Prabhulal Balai. When a search was being made by the complainant and the other villagers, he was found lying in the field with various injuries over his body. On being asked, the deceased- Roop Singh informed the complainant that he was beaten mercilessly by the petitioner, Kishan Singh @ Pappu Singh and Prabhulal Balai. As per the complainant, the deceased was immediately taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Kishan Singh @ Pappu Singh on the very next date of lodging of the FIR has committed suicide. The Investigating Agency has recovered only one blunt weapon (lathi) from an open place to show involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Though as per the prosecution, the deceased was allegedly beaten by the three persons. Learned counsel submitted that it is surprising that though the deceased- Roop Singh died while in undergoing treatment at Government Hospital but his statements were not recorded by the police which allegedly accompanied him to the hospital. Apart from the complainant and his wife, no other witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that in their presence, the deceased- Roop Singh narrated the fact of he being beaten by the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the complainant- Lal Singh (PW.1) and his wife- Smt. Pushpa Devi (PW.2) who had allegedly seen the petitioner and other named accused persons going towards the field soon before the alleged incident have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents; the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there is no eye witness of the incident. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there is no eye witness of the incident. This Court further prima facie finds that though as per the complainant, when his father did not return home, he alongwith other villagers made search of him and found him lying in the field. It is pertinent to note here that apart from the petitioner, none of the villager has stated that the deceased in their presence disclosed the name of the petitioner as an assailant. This Court further prima facie finds that though as per the prosecution, there were 3 assailants but only 1 blunt weapon (lathi) has been recovered from an open place. In the opinion of this Court, since the investigation against the petitioner has already been concluded and the statements of the material prosecution witnesses viz. PW.1 and PW.2 have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. It is pertinent to note here that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the other material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sajjan Singh S/ o Bhoor Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.153/2024 registered at Police Station Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand, 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 learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.” 7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.” 7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the role assigned to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused-Sajjan Singh who has already been enlarged on bail. This Court further prima facie finds that the statements of the eye-witnesses namely Lal Singh (PW.1) and Pushpa Devi (PW.2) have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice or tampering with the evidence, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.(483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Prabhu Lal S/o Chunni Lal Balai, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 153/2024, registered at Police Station Rajnagar, District Rajsamand, 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 learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.