Kuldeep Mathur, J
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2020, registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused persons namely Maan Singh @ Mania (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1541/2023) and Suresh (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1357/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024. Learned counsel contended that the case of the present appellant is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons therefore, the appellant may also be enlarged on bail.
Learned counsel further contended that there are no eye witnesses of the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the ‘last seen’ theory. Learned counsel submitted that there is a considerable time gap between, when the deceased-Rampratap was lastly seen alive in the company of the present appellant and when the deceased was found dead. This is clearly established from the statements of the witness- Hanuman (PW.7) who has stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused at 9:00 PM. On 16.07.2020 and the deceased was found in the kund on the next day at 12:00 PM. Further, learned counsel submitted that it is apparent from the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW.9) who has stated that the complainant-Mahendra in the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., had disclosed that he himself, had not seen the present appellant taking the deceased away in a car from the house of the complainant and rather, the said information was supplied to him by one- Rajesh. Learned counsel further submitted that the witness- Mahendra (PW.6), upon the pertinent question in this regard initially feigned ignorance but later on, accepted it. Learned counsel thus, on the strength of these facts submitted that the entire aspect of the deceased lastly seen alive in the company of the accused is doubtful.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is nothing on record to establish the motive for the appellant to kill the deceased. Further, in the postmortem report of the deceased, the Medical Board has not given any specific finding that the deceased was strangulated or suffocated. It was vehemently contended that no ligature mark or signs of throttling were found on the neck of the deceased.
Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody for more than three years and nine months and the statements of the material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court. The case against the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence in which prosecution is required to complete the chain of incriminating circumstances against the present appellant. The evidence of ‘last seen’ present in this case, is prima facie not sufficient for holding the appellant guilty. The appellant is in judicial custody and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be extended to the appellant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application, however, they were not in position to refute the fact the co-accused persons namely Maan Singh @ Mania and Suresh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case against the present appellant is based on circumstantial evidence; co-accused persons namely Maan Singh @ Mania and Suresh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 26.02.2024; the appellant is in judicial custody since last more than three years and nine months; there is a considerable time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were allegedly seen in the company of each other and when the deceased was found dead; this Court also prima facie finds that the statements of material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the appellant influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant.
Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Ajay Singh @ Ajaypal Singh @ Aju S/o Mohan Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2020, registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this Court.
