Bheru Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10208 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8258/2022 Bheru Lal S/o Laxmi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Bagedi, P.s. Lasadiya, Dist. Udaipur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 04/08/2022

1. The 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Bheru Lal S/o Laxmi Lal

against the Order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Court

below in the matter arose out of FIR No. 30/2021 registered at

Police Station Lasadiya, District Udaipur for the offence(s) under

Sections 366, 302, 201 & 404 IPC.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated the facts of the

case are that on 20.02.2021, an FIR came to be lodged at the

stance of Sh. Kera S/o Kana Meena alleging inter alia that his

daughter Movani was missing since last 20-25 days. He made

some inquiries and got to know that she might be taken away by

the petitioner. On the day of lodging of the FIR, he informed about

a human skeleton, clothes, slippers and wrist watch lying

somewhere, therefore, a doubt has been casted either she had

been killed or committed suicide. Earlier, an inquest under Section

174 Cr.P.C. was registered and during the course of the inquiry,

clothes, slippers and wrist watch claimed to be identified by the

complainant showing that these were the belongings of the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-8258/2022]

deceased. For the purpose of DNA comparison, blood samples of

the relatives were taken and sent to the FSL. The petitioner has

been arrested on the basis of suspicion and it is alleged that after

his arrest, a 'Gamacha (cloth)' allegedly smeared with blood was

recovered on 04.03.2021. A silver ornament has also been

recovered for which it is alleged that the same also belongs to the

deceased. It is notable that the ornament has no specific

identification marked on it and no endeavor has been made to get

the same identified by the complainant to assert the fact that the

same belongs to the deceased.

3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a

false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accused-

petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Trial is

likely to take long time to conclude. After Investigation, charge-

sheet has been filed in the matter. No useful purpose would be

served by keeping the accused behind the bars till disposal of the

case.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire

material made available on record more particularly the challan

papers. The submission made by Mr. Love Jain, learned counsel for

the petitioner seems to be worth considerable that a sane person

will never preserve a blood smeared 'Gamacha' with him after

incident for long two months as well as the submission that in

absence of identification of property, there can be no nexus

between the alleged recovery and the killing of the deceased.

Admittedly, the present is a case totally based upon

circumstantial evidence since eye witness account of incident is

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-8258/2022]

not available. The cardinal principles of circumstantial evidence

has been propounded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of

judicial pronouncements. The celebrity judgment Hanumant

Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC

343] and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

[1985 SCR (1) 88] have propounded the cardinal principles to

appreciate the circumstantial evidence as per which the

circumstances put forth against the accused must be like a

spider's web leaving no room for exit to the accused. All the

circumstances must form a chain, so complete, so as to unerringly

pointing towards the guilty of the accused and it can be presumed

that within all probabilities, the offence must have been

committed by the accused and none else.

Be that as it may, at this stage of the trial, this Court refrains

from making any observation in respect of merits of the case,

however, considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for

the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of

the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the

accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named

above 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.

(FARJAND ALI),J SAHIL/RAJAT/2

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)