VIJAY CHOUDHARY 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.199/2021 registered at Police Station Sangriya, District Hanumangarh, for offence under Sec. 302 of the IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no evidence worth the name available on record of the case to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged crime of murder of Mangal Singh. Drawing attention of the court towards the FIR No. 199/2021 dtd. 16/4/2021, learned counsel submitted that the dead body of the deceased Mangal Singh was found lying near water canal. Learned counsel submitted that though in the FIR the complainant apprehended involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged crime but there is no evidence available on record to show that the present petitioner had committed the alleged crime. Learned counsel urged that there was no motive of the petitioner to kill the deceased-Mangal Singh. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the deceased, seen before his death, was seen in the company of the present petitioner by the one Gurvinder Singh @ Sonu. Drawing attention of the court towards the statements of Gurvinder Singh @ Sonu recorded before the competent criminal court as PW-3, learned counsel submitted that PW-3 during the court statement has clearly stated that he had not seen the petitioner and the deceased fighting or the petitioner killing the deceased. As per the statements of PW-3, on 15/4/2021, he had only seen the petitioner and the deceased talking to each other. Learned counsel submitted that in view of aforesaid statements of PW-3 it cannot be said that the present petitioner had committed the alleged crime.

(3.) Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 16/4/2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this court prima facie finds that there is no direct evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged crime. This Court also prima facie finds that the blunt weapon (Lathi) has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner however, the same does not contain any blood stains. Thus, in the opinion of this Court whether or not, the evidence of 'last seen' can be treated to be sufficient for holding the present petitioner guilty, would be for the trial court to decide and any comment by this court at this stage may prejudice the trial. However, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances as noted above, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.