The High Court dismissed a second bail application filed by an accused facing charges of culpable homicide and attempted murder. The court rejected the argument of hostile eyewitness testimony, relying on the corroboration from the victim and her husband.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1278/2021
Arshad @ Mirchi S/o Ishaq, R/o Near Tejaji Ka Chabutara Ps Anantpura Dist. Kota Raj. (At Present In Central Jail Kota)
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. F.R. Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
24/02/2021
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.190/2020 registered at Police Station Nayapura, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 393 of I.P.C. and later on for offence under Sections 393 & 394 of I.P.C.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the eye-witness of the incident, namely, Maruf Hussain (PW-3) has turned hostile. He submitted that even the complainant and her husband has not identified him during the test identification parade and hence, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposing the bail application submitted that the petitioner has criminal record and hence, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1278/2021]
The complainant (PW-1) as well as her husband (PW-2) have levelled allegations against the present petitioner in their examination-in-chief. It is a well established principal of law that marshalling of evidence is not permissible at the stage of consideration of the bail. application. Merely because the eyewitness has turned hostile, does not entitle the petitioner to bail in view of statements of the victim-complainant and her husband who is also an eye-witness.
The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Sudha/04
1 issue framed by the court
Whether hostile testimony of an eyewitness entitles the accused to bail when the victim-complainant and her husband (also an eyewitness) maintain their charges.
Arshad @ Mirchi
State Of Rajasthan
Mahendar Kumar Goyal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
