In a bail application regarding a murder charge, the Single Bench held that 161 Cr.P.C. statements and mobile phone switching evidence were insufficient to establish guilt, granting bail.
Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
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.
[2023/RJJD/015574]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1350/2023
Rajendra Prasad Beragi S/o Jagdish Prasad Beragi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mathura Khedi Ps Kanand Dist. Aagar Malwa M.p. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Bengu Dist. Chittorgarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr.R.K.Charan. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
16/05/2023
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.188/2022 registered at Police Station Bengu, District Chittorgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. As per prosecution, on 6.7.2022, dead body of one Smt.Rekha in burnt condition was found in the forest of Hari Badaliya. The investigating agency during the course of investigation, on the basis of the information provided by coaccused Manohar, has implicated the present petitioner in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that there was no eye-witness of the incident. The entire case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned counsel submitted that only significant evidence available against him is
[2023/RJJD/015574]
[CRLMB-1350/2023]
(2 of 3)
that he was seen last in the company of co-accused Manohar Singh; there is no other piece of corroboratory evidence to support the allegation of murder. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of Lokesh Singh, Ayush Chaube, Ishwar Singh Mewara and Bhagwan Singh Karada recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not sufficient to establish involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no motive whatsoever to kill the deceased and merely because on the date of alleged incident, he was last seen with the co-accused Manohar Singh, the same is not sufficient to sustain the charge of murder against the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the entire case of the petitioner is based on circumstantial evidence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that from the analysis of the mobile numbers of present petitioner and coaccused Manohar Singh, it is evident that both the accused and petitioner simultaneously switched off and switched on their mobile at a particular time. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that aforesaid act is sufficient to indicate involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime. He thus prayed that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail in the present case.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1350/2023]
[2023/RJJD/015574]
Having considered the submissions advanced at bar and facts and circumstances of the case so also the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima-facie this Court is of the opinion that the statements of the aforesaid witnesses may not be sufficient to show involvement of the petitioner in the present case. Also, the act of switching on and switching off mobile phones by the petitioner and co-accused at a particular point of time is not a circumstance enough to show guilt/intention of the petitioner to commit the alleged crime. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Rajendra Prasad Beragi S/o Jagdish Prasad Beragi arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.188/2022 registered at Police Station Bengu, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/
Sr.No.18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the petitioner charged with murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether SIM swap evidence and witness statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are sufficient to deny bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rajendra Prasad Beragi
State Of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
