AASHISH DHAKAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant bail application has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Aashish Dhakad S/o Ramchandra. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 80/2020 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh for the offence(s) under Ss. 302 and 201 of the IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 7/7/2020 and till now the trial of the case has not been concluded. He further submits that at the time of registration of the FIR and when the complainant was examined under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., he has not disclosed the names of the present petitioner but he stated the name of the petitioner in his supplementary statement. He further submits that recovery of articles was effected from an open place and not from the exclusive possession of the present petitioner. He further submits that complainant Bhagwan Lal was examined as P.W.1 before the trial Court and was declared hostile by the prosecution. He further submits that other witnesses examined by the prosecution have also turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. He relied upon the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial Court. He further submits that there was no nexus between the alleged incident and the presence of present petitioner at the place of incident, he was arrested only on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that suspicion cannot be substituted for proof. He further submits that accusedpetitioner is languishing in jail for a quite long time and all substantial witnesses have been examined and most of them are turned hostile, thus, keeping the petitioner in prolonged incarceration would not serve any purpose. Thus, he prayed that petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Bail application was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that serious offence is registered against the present petitioner and he is charged with causing disappearance of evidence of offence. He further submits that there are certain set of evidence which is still available on record against the accused and the same can be looked by the Court.