Radhey Shyam S/o Shri Hadman Singh vs The State of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

The instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.41/2017, registered at Police Station Sheo, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 342, 354, 366 and 120-B IPC.

It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR.

The trial Court has enlarged on bail the co-accused persons who were named in the FIR as well as in the statement of the abducted girl recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that during test identification proceedings, the abducted girl failed to identify the petitioner, therefore, irrespective of the fact that some previous cases are registered against the petitioner, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel and contended that the petitioner is named in the statement of the witness Manohar Singh which was recorded on the very day of lodging of the FIR. Further, the victim herself, in the test identification proceedings has given an explanation as to why she could not identify the petitioner as an assailant. They thus urge that the petitioner who has significant criminal antecedents does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on record.

Manohar Singh who named the petitioner as one of the assailants is closely related to the first informant Mag Singh. The FIR came to lodged after nearly 16 hours of the incident and presumably there must have been a consultation with the witnesses before lodging of the FIR. Thus, omission of the petitioner's name in the FIR is a very material circumstance.

Further, the victim herself did not identify the petitioner as an assailant in the TI parade.

In this background and having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Radhey Shyam arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.41/2017, registered at Police Station Sheo, District Barmer 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.