Shankar vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.134/2021 registered at Police Station Kachhola, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 451 IPC.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was contended that there is no eye-witness of the incident which occurred on 21.09.2021 and the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of alleged extra-judicial confession made by him before private individuals on 25.09.2021.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before the villagers and the family members of the deceased, learned counsel submitted that by no stretch of imagination, the said extra-judicial confession can be said to be made voluntarily by him. The petitioner was surrounded by the villagers and he was forced to make the statement. It was further submitted that there is no other evidence available on record which could connect him with the alleged crime. Learned counsel urged that it is a settled law that if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, only then it acquires more credibility.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Lalaram (PW-9), learned counsel submitted that though the aforesaid witness, in his statements, stated that he had seen the petitioner and deceased fighting with each other, but even the aforesaid witness had not seen the petitioner beating deceased with the weapon or tying him with the rope.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that since the extra-judicial confession in the present case is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that nothing has been brought on record indicating that the petitioner had a motive to commit the alleged crime.

Having gone through the extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner before villagers and relatives of the deceased, this Court prima facie finds sufficient force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extra-judicial confession made in the present case, does not appear to be voluntary. At the time of making extra-judicial confession, the petitioner was surrounded by so many people and, therefore, even though the same had been recorded in the mobile phone, its reliability is not beyond the shadow of doubt.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shankar S/o Gauru arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.134/2021 registered at Police Station Kachhola, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.