Hon'ble Justice Farjand Ali allowed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to hostile eye-witness, delayed recording of extra-judicial confession by near-relatives of victim, insufficient direct evidence, and high probability of protracted trial.
Accused granted bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- plus 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.
(1 of 4) [CRLMB-5709/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:28119]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 5709/2024
Surajbhan S/o Sh Laxminarayan @ Lichhiram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Khet Me Dhani, Chak 08, H.H. Ward No.9, Daniramwala, P.s. Chunawadh, Tehsil And Distt. Srigangangar, Raj (Presently Lodged In Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate |
|---|---|
| Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Abhishek Purohit, AGA |
| Mr. Aakash Kumar |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
10/07/2024
| S.No. | Particulars of | the Case |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | FIR Number |
169/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station |
Chunawadh |
| 3. | District |
Sri Ganganagar |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR |
Under Sections 365, 143 of IPC |
| 5. | Offences added, if any |
Under Sections 302, 201, 364, 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 120-B of IPC |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order |
15.04.2024 |
[2024:RJ-JD:28119]
[CRLMB-5709/2024]
(2 of 4)
There has been only one eye-witness to depose against the petitioner, but he has turned hostile and has not supported the story set out in the charge-sheet. In the charge-sheet, two other witnesses namely Om Prakash and Tarachand have been projected by prosecution to depose against the petitioner in respect of alleged extra judicial confession. It is the case of the prosecution, that the petitioner after committing the offence made a confession before these two witnesses namely Om Prakash and Tarachand.
The incident took place on 19.07.2023, however, the statements of these two witnesses got recorded by Police on 30.08.2023.
Inordinate delay in the recording of the statement during investigation, that too; of the witnesses whose
[2024:RJ-JD:28119]
[CRLMB-5709/2024]
(3 of 4)
evidence may turn or flip the case of the prosecution, certainly casts a serious doubt over the credibility of the investigation, however, this Court would desist from giving any final opinion in this regard as the matter is still pending in the trial and any comment on the veracity of the statement or manner or investigation may influence interest of any of the party to the lis.
Ordinarily, as a rule of common prudence, a man who commits an offence would confess before a person with whom he is divinely or spiritually attached, or a person on whom he possess full confidence or trust or a person with whom he expects assistance or help or any other person having keen relation as a family member or a confession can be made to a priest, but in any wildest imagination, an accused shall not make confession before a person having connection with the opposite party.
There are serious aspersions that these two witnesses Om Prakash and Tarachand are tailor-made witnesses and are near relatives of the victim party and they have been made witness in this case only with a view to bolster the story of the prosecution or to make a strong case in favour of the prosecution. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, 2005 SCC , the rule regarding extra judicial confession has elaborately been enunciated.
Delayed recording of important witnesses, that too of enemy witnesses persuading this Court to entertain the instant bail plea. The eye-witness has turned hostile. No
(4 of 4)
[2024:RJ-JD:28119]
[CRLMB-5709/2024]
other witness is there to give any direct evidence regarding complicity of the petitioner in committing murder of the deceased.
There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
(FARJAND ALI),J
105-chhavi/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted in a murder case where eye-witness turned hostile and extra-judicial confessions were recorded with inordinate delay after the offence.
Whether the concocted nature of prosecution witnesses and lack of direct evidence complicity warrants enlargement on bail.
Whether the anticipated long trial duration makes bail appropriate despite serious charges.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja RamDistinguished¶30
State of Rajasthan Vs. Raja Ram, 2005 SCC
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surajbhan S/o Sh Laxminarayan
State Of Rajasthan
Farjand Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
