Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Roopesh @ Tabbal Son Of Fateh Singh @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2022
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9818/2022
Roopesh @ Tabbal Son Of Fateh Singh @ Fattal, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Mohanpur Thana Balaghat, District Karauli
(Rajasthan) At Present In Central Jail At Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitender Mituka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/07/2022
1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner- Roopesh @ Tabbal Son Of Fateh Singh @ Fattal under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.298/2021 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Karauli for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 365, 34 & 120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the eye witness of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence, however, the circumstances put forward against the petitioner are neither firm in tendency nor conclusive in nature. He further submits that the case of the prosecution is mainly banking upon the statement of prosecution witness-Himanshu so as to establish the fact that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused, however, a (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:51:24 AM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-9818/2022] perusal of his statement does not reflect so. He further avers that it is evident from the record that the petitioner was not known to the said witness-Himanshu prior to the incident. It is stated by the witness-Himanshu that the petitioner was present in the procession and cremation of the deceased. Thus, the presumption of innocence in favour of the petitioner is further fortified. No further custodial interrogation is required for any purpose. There is no further evidence that shows direct nexus of the petitioner with the alleged crime. After investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. It is submitted that the deceased was having clashes with several persons, therefore, the possibility that some other persons might have committed his murder can not be ruled out at this stage.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J CHARU SONI /31 (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 02:51:24 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)