Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jai Kishan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:29449) on 8 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:29449]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6473/2025
Jai Kishan S/o Rakesh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gram Khejadla
Ps Bilara District Jodhpur Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At Jail
Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
08/07/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C./483 BNSS at
the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the
matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 211/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Bilara 3. District Jodhpur Rural 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 302, 392 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Under Section 147, 148, 450, 460, 396, 302/149, 120 IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 17.04.2025
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:43:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29449] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6473/2025]
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. Admittedly, the eye witness account of the incident is not
available on record, and the entire case of the prosecution
majorly and wholly depend upon certain circumstantial
evidence against the accused. The most important piece of
evidence relied upon by the prosecution would be recovery of
two gold chains at the instance of the petitioner during
investigation, and certainly post his arrest. Whether these
two chains belonged to the deceased, Kavita, is a core
question to be adjudicated. In my view, on this basis alone, a
nexus between the accused and the alleged crime cannot be
established. It is an admitted fact situation that identification
of the property, soon after alleged recovery from the
petitioner was not made and therefore, it cannot be said with
utmost certainty that any article recovered from the
petitioner belonged to the deceased or was allegedly stolen
by him after causing her death. There is no recovery of
blood-stained clothes or blood-smeared weapon. Further,
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:43:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29449] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6473/2025]
there is no evidence that the petitioner was seen at or near
the place of crime or was captured on a camera.
6. In the case of Sanwat Khan and Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 1956 SC 54, Hon’ble the Supreme Court
has propounded that the only presumption available under
Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, upon recovery of a
stolen article from an accused soon after the incident, is that
the accused either stole the property or received it knowing it
to be stolen. Under no stretch of imagination can it be
presumed that he committed both theft and murder merely
on the basis of such recovery. The Court further held that, in
the absence of concrete and positive evidence to show that
the theft and the act of murder formed part of the same
transaction or occurred simultaneously, no presumption can
be drawn connecting the accused with the offence of murder.
Besides this, there is not an iota of evidence–whether in the
form of an extra-judicial confession, motive, last seen
circumstance with the deceased, dying declaration, or any
other material–establishing a direct or even indirect nexus of
the accused with the commission of the alleged offence.
7. Be that as it may, it is only a legal observation and would
have no bearing or influence on the trial in any manner.
However, looking to the nature and quality of evidence, and
period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner till now
and there is high probability that the trial may take long time
to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:43:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:29449] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6473/2025]
deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner
in the present matter.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C./483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the
accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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 his appearance
before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and
when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
42-chhavi/-
(Downloaded on 09/07/2025 at 09:43:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link