CHAND NATH @ CHANDARAM @ CHANDIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under incarceration for alleged offences of murder, causing disappearance of evidence of offence and criminal conspiracy in furtherance of investigation into FIR No. 77/2016, registered at Police Station, Baytu, District Barmer, petitioner has laid instant application under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C., 1973 to seek his release on bail.

(2.) The bare necessary facts for the purpose of this bail application are that complainant Shanker Lal submitted a written report before SHO PS Baytu, District Barmer on 12th of Sept. 2016, inter-alia, alleging therein that on the intervening night of 11th and 12th of Sept. 2016 his father Deepa Ram was given severe beatings by unknown persons and due to grievous injuries on head and other vital parts of the body, he succumbed to death. The written report was registered as aforementioned FIR and investigation commenced. Pursuant to investigation, police collected certain incriminating evidence against the petitioner and consequently he was apprehended on 17th Sept. 2016 with four other accused persons. While in custody, as a consequence of information received from petitioner, police collected incriminating material, viz., blood-stained lathi and his blood smeared clothes. In due course of time, police submitted charge sheet against petitioner and four other co-accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a bare reading of FIR makes it abundantly clear that it is against unknown persons and therefore prima facie there is no direct evidence to connect the petitioner with alleged offences. Learned counsel would contend that during investigation no witness has whispered against the petitioner much less showed his involvement in commission of offence. Learned counsel further submits that even the information of Mukhbir is conspicuously silent about the petitioner. It is argued by learned counsel that there is no semblance of proof about motive of the petitioner for commission of offence. Taking a dig at recovery of incriminating material on alleged disclosure of the petitioner, learned counsel has argued that the same is under serious cloud inasmuch as it is almost 8-9 days after the occurrence of incident. Learned counsel has also urged that one of the co-accused Bhika Ram, who had some motive to commit the offence, has been granted bail by the Court, and therefore, petitioner also deserves reprieve in the form of bail. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet in the matter is yet another relevant consideration for enlarging the petitioner on bail.