Jitendra @ Anna vs State Of Rajasthan

Dinesh Mehta, J

The present bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 68/2023 registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 302, 115 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that many of the co-accused persons including one Bharat Singh have been enlarged on bail and the applicant’s case is not different from that co-accused, (Bharat Singh) inasmuch as, the allegations against the applicant is only that he had arranged for pistol and cartridges.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the aforesaid position.

While accepting the bail application (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 9224/2023) of co-accused Bharat Singh, this Court vide order dated 11.01.2024, has observed thus:

“2. Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been enroped on the allegations of conspiracy.

Learned counsel took the Court through the conclusion of the charge-sheet, particularly para No.11 thereof and highlighted that the only allegation against the present applicant is that he took the principal accused to Madhya Pradesh for purchase of a pistol and thereafter carried out recce of the deceased.

While maintaining that the allegations are baseless, learned counsel argued that even if the same are accepted to be correct then in absence of applicant’s active role in commission of murder, the applicant, who is in judicial custody since 18.04.2023, cannot be kept behind bars till indefinite period.

Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Avin Chhangani, learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that the applicant is a member of the group of criminal tendency, which is indulged in heinous crime.

Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

Admittedly, the ground for which the applicant has been inculpated is, the statement under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and there is no other linking evidence in the form of call details or the call location.

In the opinion of this Court, even if it is assumed that the present applicant had taken the principal accused in his car to Madhya Pradesh for purchase of pistol, then also he can be accused under the provisions of Arms Act, 1959 read with section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and not for the offence of murder per-se, unless there is cogent evidence indicating his involvement in such offence.

So far as allegation of recce is concerned, this Court is unable to comprehend as to when the address of the deceased was known to the principal accused and when the deceased was murdered at no place other than his shop, how the allegation of recce can hold ground!”

Having regard to the reasoning given in the case of co-accused Bharat Singh and considering that the present applicant is not even being accused of Recce, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application filed by the applicant, who is behind the bars since 21.02.2023, as the trial of the case is likely to take substantial time.

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Jitendra @ Anna S/o Fakeerchand arrested in connection with the FIR No. 68/2023 registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.