Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Surjya vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5751 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4028/2022

Tejpal @ Teju S/o Shri Surjya, Aged 28 Years, R/o Mandola, P.S.
Jhojhu District Charkhi Dadri ( Haryana).
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
                               Mr. Mohit Baklwada for complainant



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                    Order

23/08/2022

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Tejpal @ Teju S/o Shri

Surjya, against the order dated impugned passed by concerned

court below for the offences under Sections 365, 379, 302 & 120-

B, 34 of IPC in FIR No. 92/2021 registered at Police Station

Behror, District Bhiwadi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story

setup by the prosecution in the charge-sheet is that the dead body

of deceased Bhagirath was found at a secluded place. The eye

witness account of the incident is not available. An endeavour has

been made to connect the petitioner with certain circumstances

viz recovery of pick-up, statements of prosecution witnesses

Mahendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar, who in their statements

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have stated that on the

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4028/2022]

fateful day of incident, they saw the accused driving a pick-up

carrying she-goats. There is neither any evidence to show that the

deceased was last seen in the company of the accused nor any

evidence regarding collection of any material to connect the

petitioner with the death of the deceased. No recovery of weapon

and blood smeared belongings has been affected.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned

counsel for the complainant submits that the she-goats are the

same goats being taken by the accused. The recovery of pick-up

helps the story of prosecution. The bail application of the co-

accused has been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

4. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner

seems to be worth considering that the evidence of the two

above-mentioned witnesses Mahendra Kumar and Narendra

Kumar does not help the case of the prosecution to the extent of

fastening their liability for the murder of the deceased. The she-

goats that the petitioner was carrying were the same which were

stolen has not been proved yet. The pick-up that was found has

no blood stains on it. It is true that the bail of the co-accused has

been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but more

than one year has elapsed and the right of the accused to get a

speedy trial has been infringed.

5. The cardinal principle of circumstantial evidence propounded

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Govind

Nargundkar Vs. State of MP [AIR 1952 SC 343] and thereafter in

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC

1622] that circumstantial evidence must be like a spider's web

leaving no room for doubt so as to benefit the accused. Every

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4028/2022]

circumstance put forth against the accused must be established

individually and all must form a chain so complete that if all the

circumstance are taken cumulatively, they unerringly point

towards the guilt of the accused. It must be inconsistence with

any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. This Court

aptly guided by this principle as laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme

Court in plethora of judgments and following which I feel

persuaded to allow the bail application.

6. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the

parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long

time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge

the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the 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

12-Amit

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)