Allowed

Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Surjya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Aug 2022CRLMB/4028/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed the bail application of the accused in a murder case. Noting deficiencies in prosecution evidence and the delay suffered by the accused, the court held that the circumstances did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Surjya Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4028/2022

¶3

Tejpal @ Teju S/o Shri Surjya, Aged 28 Years, R/o Mandola, P.S. Jhojhu District Charkhi Dadri ( Haryana). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Mohit Baklwada for complainant

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶9

Order

¶10

23/08/2022

¶11

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Tejpal @ Teju S/o Shri Surjya, against the order dated impugned passed by concerned court below for the offences under Sections 365, 379, 302 & 120B, 34 of IPC in FIR No. 92/2021 registered at Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the story setup by the prosecution in the charge-sheet is that the dead body of deceased Bhagirath was found at a secluded place. The eye witness account of the incident is not available. An endeavour has been made to connect the petitioner with certain circumstances viz recovery of pick-up, statements of prosecution witnesses Mahendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar, who in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have stated that on the

¶13

(2 of 3)

¶14

[CRLMB-4028/2022]

¶15

fateful day of incident, they saw the accused driving a pick-up carrying she-goats. There is neither any evidence to show that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused nor any evidence regarding collection of any material to connect the petitioner with the death of the deceased. No recovery of weapon and blood smeared belongings has been affected.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the she-goats are the same goats being taken by the accused. The recovery of pick-up helps the story of prosecution. The bail application of the coaccused has been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 4. The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be worth considering that the evidence of the two above-mentioned witnesses Mahendra Kumar and Narendra Kumar does not help the case of the prosecution to the extent of fastening their liability for the murder of the deceased. The shegoats that the petitioner was carrying were the same which were stolen has not been proved yet. The pick-up that was found has no blood stains on it. It is true that the bail of the co-accused has been dismissed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but more than one year has elapsed and the right of the accused to get a speedy trial has been infringed.

¶17

The cardinal principle of circumstantial evidence propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State of MP [AIR 1952 SC 343] and thereafter in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622] that circumstantial evidence must be like a spider’s web leaving no room for doubt so as to benefit the accused. Every

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMB-4028/2022]

¶20

circumstance put forth against the accused must be established individually and all must form a chain so complete that if all the circumstance are taken cumulatively, they unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. It must be inconsistence with any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. This Court aptly guided by this principle as laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in plethora of judgments and following which I feel persuaded to allow the bail application.

¶21

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, named above, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶24

12-Amit

Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Surjya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal @ Teju S/O Shri Surjya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayub S/O Fajru Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Mohan Meena S/O Shri Ratiram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kishore S/O Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aman Verma @ Chetan Verma S/O Shri Raju Verma @ Rajendra Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivlal @ Solya Son of Banshilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Akhtar S/O Basir Vs State of Rajasthan