Papuram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7805 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32445]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4544/2023

Papuram S/o Shri Jagannath Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Choudhary Colony Ps Gangashaher Dist. Bikaner (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Nokha)

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.P. Chhangani Mr. Vimal Chhangani For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP Mr. I.R. Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

03/10/2023

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of

accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                             Particulars of the Case
     1.      FIR Number                                92/2019
     2.      Concerned Police Station                  Panchu
     3.      District                                  Bikaner
     4.      Offences alleged in the FIR               147, 148, 364, 302 and
                                                       149 IPC
     5.      Offences added, if any                    120-B,    364/149              &
                                                       302/149 IPC

6. Date of passing of impugned 17.02.2023 order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the

petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and his

[2023:RJ-JD:32445] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4544/2023]

name has falsely been dragged into the matter because of

personal vengeance. He drew the Court's attention towards the

testimonies of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 Hanuman Rama and Pema Ram,

who in their oath statements have candidly admits that the first

informant P.W. 1 Hetram, who is son of the deceased, was not

present at the time of alleged incident. Both these witnesses have

categorically stated in their examination-in chief that the

petitioner was not present at the time of commission of crime.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for

the complainant oppose the bail application and submits that the

present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and perused the material available on record.

5. On perusal of the statements of the P.W. 3 and P.W. 4

Hanuman Ram and Pema Ram it is revealing that P.W. 1 Hetram

was not present at the time of commission of crime. These two

witnesses were produced by the prosecution. They are

independent witnesses and have reproduced the eye-witness

account before the Court. There is nothing on record on the basis

of which, the evidence of two independent prosecution witnesses

can be discarded or disbelieved at the stage of trial. The

submission of learned counsel cannot be ignored that though, the

prosecution witness P.W. 1 Hetram has mentioned the name of the

petitioner as an assailant but he being the son of the deceased, is

an interested and a partisan witness. If the evidence of P.W. 3 &

P.W.4 Hanuman Ram and Pema Ram is weighed together with the

[2023:RJ-JD:32445] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4544/2023]

evidence of P.W. 1 Hetram, the scale tilt towards enlargement of

bail. Till date, only 5 witnesses have been examined and large

number of witnesses are yet to be examined, therefore, this fact

cannot be ignored that the presence of P.W. 1 Hetram has been

negated by two independent witnesses, who were projected as

eye-witnesses and they have not turned hostile. Except the above

referred P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 Hanuman Ram and Pema Ram, no

other witness has been projected as eye-witness. Thus, the

purpose of keeping any person behind the bars during trial is not

more than to ensure a smooth, fair and speedy trial as well as to

see that the accused may not hamper the prosecution witnesses

or may not flee from justice. The sentence would run after

passing of the judgment of conviction and hearing on the point of

sentence. The main purpose is only to see that the accused would

have to appear before the Court during the course of trial and at

the time of his conviction so that he may receive the sentence as

may be inflicted upon him. The meticulous appreciation of

evidence is not required to be made at this stage but at the same

time, the fact cannot be ignored that the petitioner has a good

plea in respect of his claim of innocence.

Thus, viewing from any angle, the nature of accusation, the

availability of material in support thereof and the period of

incarceration, suffered by the petitioner till now, at this stage, this

Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has a strong

arguable case in his favour and looking to the fact that there is

high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is

[2023:RJ-JD:32445] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4544/2023]

deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the

present matter.

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as

named in the cause title 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 37-Mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)