KISHNA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.38/2023, registered at Police Station Matoda, District Jodhpur Rural, for offence under Sec. 302/34 IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against present petitioner is that on 10/3/2023, he along with co-accused person attacked his father, aged about 65 years and assaulted him by fist and kick blows. The father of the deceased sustained injuries and died on the same date, while undergoing treatment. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Khamba recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was having dispute with his father pertaining to disconnection / sale of electricity connection of the agriculture field owned by them, to some third party.

(2.) Drawing attention of the Court towards the postmortem report, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the post mortem report, the cause of death is hemorrhage shock due to avulsion of major blood vessel. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no intention of causing injury to his father and the incident transpired in the heat of the moment when the petitioner went to meet his father who was working in the field, to discuss the issue with regard to disconnection / sale of electricity connection. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that no injury was inflicted to the deceased with lathi / dando (blunt or sharp weapon), coupled with the fact that the petitioner himself took the deceased to the hospital, it is evident that petitioner had no motive or intention to murder his father (deceased). The petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. He submitted that evidence collected so far by the investigating agency indicates that the petitioner attacked his father with an intent to commit the alleged crime. Lastly, it was submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations against the present petitioner, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, so also the fact that deceased was allegedly assaulted by the petitioner with fist and kick blows and was also taken to the hospital by the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.