Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mushtaq Khan S/O Ameen Khan vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 November, 2022
Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7060/2022
Mushtaq Khan S/o Ameen Khan, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
Of Sardaro Ka Bas Khourkha Kalan P.S. Tatarpur, District Alwar
Rajasthan.
(Accused Petitioner Are In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Alwar)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP Mr. Sumer Singh Ola HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/11/2022 This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by petitioner in connection with FIR No.249/2021 registered at Police Station Tatarpur, District Bhiwari wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 143, 365, 302 & 201 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased Udmiram got missing on 26.11.2021 and thereafter, his son Satish Kumar lodged a missing person report No.24/2021 with Police Station Tatarpur, Mundawar, District Alwar on 02.12.2021 wherein a detailed enquiry was conducted by the police from the complainant Satish Kumar his two brothers Satpal and Satpan other family members and none of these persons have disclosed the name of the petitioner in that enquiry. Counsel submits that when the dead body of the deceased was found then an FIR was registered by the (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:08:19 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7060/2022] same complainant Satish with Police Station Tatarpur on 06.12.2021. Counsel submits that instant case is based on substantial evidence and in the FIR, the complainant mentioned that one Kabul Devi was last scene witness, who saw the deceased in the company of the petitioner. Counsel submits that prior to recording the statement of the witness Kabul Devi, the petitioner was arrested on 09.12.2021 and thereafter, the statement of the witness Kabul Devi were recorded on 10.12.2021 and in the statement of the said witness also, the name of the petitioner has not been disclosed, but she has stated that the deceased was seen with one driver. Counsel submits that no test identification parade was conducted with this witness Kabul Devi and charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody from the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, so indulgence of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that instant case is a case based on circumstantial evidence which clearly indicates that the petitioner was last seen in the company of the deceased and thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive. Counsel submits that a thorough investigation was conducted by the Investigating Agency and thereafter, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner. Counsel submits that looking to the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of bail by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:08:19 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-7060/2022] Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the complainant has not mentioned the name of the petitioner in the report lodged by him on 2.12.2021. The name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR with the strength that Kabuli Devi has last seen the petitioner in the company of the deceased while Kabuli Devi has not mentioned the name of petitioner in her police statement and no test identification parade of the petitioner has been conducted, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner-Mushtaq Khan S/o Ameen Khan arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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.
However, it is made clear that while deciding this application anything observed herein shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the case. It is further made clear that the observations made while deciding this bail application are simply the arguments advanced by both the parties and the same shall not, in any way, effect the learned Trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on testimony of the witness during the course of trial.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J RAJAT KUMAR /14 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:08:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)