Allowed

Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Aug 2022CRLMB/8258/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner's plea for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., citing the presumptive falsity of recovering a blood-smeared cloth without identification in a case relying on weak circumstantial evidence regarding missing persons and murder.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 8258/2022 Bheru Lal S/o Laxmi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, Bagedi, P.s. Lasadiya, Dist. Udaipur. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Love Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶9

04/08/2022

¶10

The 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Bheru Lal S/o Laxmi Lal against the Order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the learned Court below in the matter arose out of FIR No. 30/2021 registered at Police Station Lasadiya, District Udaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 366, 302, 201 & 404 IPC.

¶11

Bereft of elaborate details, succinctly stated the facts of the case are that on 20.02.2021, an FIR came to be lodged at the stance of Sh. Kera S/o Kana Meena alleging inter alia that his daughter Movani was missing since last 20-25 days. He made some inquiries and got to know that she might be taken away by the petitioner. On the day of lodging of the FIR, he informed about a human skeleton, clothes, slippers and wrist watch lying somewhere, therefore, a doubt has been casted either she had been killed or committed suicide. Earlier, an inquest under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was registered and during the course of the inquiry, clothes, slippers and wrist watch claimed to be identified by the complainant showing that these were the belongings of the

¶12

(2 of 3)

¶13

[CRLMB-8258/2022]

¶14

deceased. For the purpose of DNA comparison, blood samples of the relatives were taken and sent to the FSL. The petitioner has been arrested on the basis of suspicion and it is alleged that after his arrest, a ‘Gamacha (cloth)’ allegedly smeared with blood was recovered on 04.03.2021. A silver ornament has also been recovered for which it is alleged that the same also belongs to the deceased. It is notable that the ornament has no specific identification marked on it and no endeavor has been made to get the same identified by the complainant to assert the fact that the same belongs to the deceased.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. After Investigation, chargesheet has been filed in the matter. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the accused behind the bars till disposal of the case.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material made available on record more particularly the challan papers. The submission made by Mr. Love Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be worth considerable that a sane person will never preserve a blood smeared ‘Gamacha’ with him after incident for long two months as well as the submission that in absence of identification of property, there can be no nexus between the alleged recovery and the killing of the deceased.

¶18

Admittedly, the present is a case totally based upon circumstantial evidence since eye witness account of incident is

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-8258/2022]

¶21

not available. The cardinal principles of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in catena of judicial pronouncements. The celebrity judgment Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343] and Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985 SCR (1) 88] have propounded the cardinal principles to appreciate the circumstantial evidence as per which the circumstances put forth against the accused must be like a spider’s web leaving no room for exit to the accused. All the circumstances must form a chain, so complete, so as to unerringly pointing towards the guilty of the accused and it can be presumed that within all probabilities, the offence must have been committed by the accused and none else.

¶22

Be that as it may, at this stage of the trial, this Court refrains from making any observation in respect of merits of the case, however, considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the 2^nd 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

SAHIL/RAJAT/2

Bheru Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheru Lal 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

Deepak Agrawal S/O Shri Purshottam Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwra Son of Ganni, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwra Son of Ganni, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Kumar @ Jitu Vs State of Rajasthan