Bahadur Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6165 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26579]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 173/2023

Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Khariya Kaniram, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Churu)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate assisted with Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

22/08/2023

1. This second application for bail has been filed by the

applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR

No.68/2016, registered at Police Station Salasar, District Churu

for the offences under Sections 302/34, 364/34, 120-B and 201 of

Indian Penal Code.

2. Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant invited Court's

attention towards the FIR, charge-sheet and the statements of

relevant witnesses and submitted that neither in the charge-sheet

nor in the testimony of the witnesses so far recorded, any

substantial evidence or material has emerged, on the basis of

which, it can be said that the applicant was involved in the crime

alleged against him.

[2023:RJ-JD:26579] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-173/2023]

3. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused - Madhusudhan

@ Bablu Singh has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate

Bench of this Court per-viam order dated 20.05.2019 while the

applicant is behind the bars since 13.02.2017.

4. While pointing out that the applicant is languishing in jail for

last 6 years and 6 months, Mr. Shah submitted that in totality of

the circumstances as indicated above, the applicant's rights

guaranteed by the Constitution of India deserve protection and

prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by

inviting Court's attention towards the criminal antecedents of the

applicant and submitted that as many as 30 cases are pending

against him.

6. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

complainant submitted that in case of an accused having criminal

antecedents such as in the present case, the merit of accusation

and chances or probability of conviction should take a backseat.

7. It was submitted that the criminal antecedents and

background of an accused are relevant factors to be reckoned

while deciding bail application and the Court should weigh the

societal impact consequent to release of such an accused vis-a-vis

right to life of an accused.

8. He argued that the applicant, who is involved in all sorts of

offences, including one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code be not enlarged on bail, as the possibility of he being

indulged in criminal activities or fleeing is imminent.

[2023:RJ-JD:26579] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-173/2023]

9. In relation to applicant's argument that the co-accused -

Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail, learned

Senior Counsel submitted that parity cannot be claimed by the

present applicant from the case of said Madhusudhan @ Bablu

Singh, in the face of his criminal antecedents.

10. Learned Senior Counsel placed for perusal of the Court, the

following judgments:-

(1) Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported

in (2016) 15 SCC 422.

(2) Ash Mohammad Vs. Shiv Raj Singh Alias Lalla Babu,

reported in (2012) 9 SCC 446

(3) State of U.P. through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi,

reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21

(4) Brijmani Devi Vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr., reported in

(2022) 4 SCC 497

(5) Order dated 05.10.2021 passed by the Apex Court in

Saudan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP

No.4633/2021).

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material so also the judgments cited at Bar.

12. After going through the material on record and judicial

precedents cited at Bar, this Court finds that the case in hand is a

case different than the usual cases, wherein the applicant is

accused of felony of committing murder; as many as 30 cases are

pending against him, including the present case and one more of

such nature and co-accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has

been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

[2023:RJ-JD:26579] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-173/2023]

13. In the present factual backdrop, this Court is not persuaded

to accept present application for bail simply because the co-

accused - Madhusudhan @ Bablu Singh has been enlarged on bail.

The large number of cases pending against the petitioner is

reflective or indicator of he being a prospective threat to the

society.

14. In the case like the one, which this Court is seized of, the

liberal approach in granting bail cannot be applied. Applicant's

personal liberty cannot be given precedence over the need of

protection of society from criminals.

15. Adverting to the merit of the case, which cannot be

overlooked simply because the applicant has a criminal track

record, this Court is of prima-facie opinion that chances of charges

against the applicant being brought home are bleak for want of

direct evidence or necessary material. No recovery has been made

from the present applicant and there is absence of circumstantial

evidence. Hence, it cannot be said with certitude that the

prosecution will be able to establish the charge leveled against the

applicant.

16. The important aspect that the applicant is facing

incarceration for more than 6 years cannot be lost sight of.

17. True it is, that 30 cases which are pending against the

applicant tend to be stumbling block in his way of getting bail, but

applicant's constitutional rights cannot be altogether ignored. He

has remained behind bars for 6 years and 6 months essentially

because of his past conduct. He is facing long drawn trial in which

a list of 37 witnesses has been given by the prosecution.

[2023:RJ-JD:26579] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-173/2023]

18. The fact that out of total 30 cases, the applicant has been

acquitted in 19 cases persuades this Court to grant him benefit of

bail, because pending of multiple cases will lead to protraction of

the trial of the present case as his presence would be required in

all the criminal cases in which he is facing trial.

19. This Court is, therefore, of the view that keeping the

applicant incarcerated till indefinite period would be against the

settled canons of law.

20. In light of the facts noticed above and being guided by the

principles laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the above

referred judgments, this Court is of the view that the applicant is

entitled to be enlarged on bail.

21. Hence, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is

allowed. The applicant - Bahadur Singh S/o Shri Ranjeet Singh

arrested in connection with FIR No.68/2016, registered at Police

Station Salasar, District Churu for the offences under Sections

302/34, 364/34, 120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code shall be

released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the trial Court.

22. Having regard to the applicant's past conduct and

antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to impose a condition

for enlargement - the applicant will have to appear before the

SHO, Salasar on 1st and 15th of every month at 04:00 pm till

completion of trial of present case. Applicant shall also be required

to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and

when called upon to do so.

[2023:RJ-JD:26579] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-173/2023]

23. Needless to mention that the above observations made by

this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the

Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall

however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take

independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral

evidence, while finally deciding the case.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 124-akansha/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)