Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chunni Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27510) on 18 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27510]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4048/2025
Chunni Lal S/o Keshra Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Malaksar,
Tehsil Bhanipura, Dist. Churu. (At Present Lodged In District Jail,
Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Upadhyaya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
18/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 BNSS/ 439 Cr.P.C. 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 141/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Bhanipura 3. District Churu 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 61(2)(a) of BNS 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 12.03.2025 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 the
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:09:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27510] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4048/2025]
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 counsels for the
petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and 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. The crux emerging from the Final Report is that the
complainant and the petitioner belong to the same family and
have agricultural lands situated in close proximity. In the FIR, the
complainant appears to attribute involvement of the petitioner.
However, upon a thorough and incisive investigation, the
investigating agency concluded that the complainant was not even
present at the scene of occurrence, as he had gone to play cricket
in Bayla. The complainant, being a close relative of the deceased,
has not been considered an eye witness by the investigating
agency. Furthermore, when an independent agency, after detailed
verification, does not find merit in the complainant’s account, it
cannot be lightly disregarded.
6. As regards to the prosecution witnesses namely Jay Ganesh,
Raju Ram, and Chetan Lal @ Kalu, it is relevant to note that Jay
Ganesh and Raju Ram are not related to either party, nor are they
partisan witnesses. Rather, they are independent injured eye-
witnesses, and according to their statements, the offence was
committed by Rohitash, who is the nephew of the petitioner. In so
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:09:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27510] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4048/2025]
far as the petitioner is concerned, their statements are clearly
exculpatory.
6.1 Coming on to the testimony of Chetan Lal @ Kalu, he has
given two statements. In his first statement, recorded on
17.08.2024, he alleged that the petitioner was driving the vehicle
and had struck them. However, upon collection of further material,
and in order to verify the accuracy of his claim, the investigating
agency re-examined him. In the subsequent statement dated
22.08.2024, Chetan Lal stated that the petitioner was not
involved, and instead attributed the offence to Rohitash, without
making any reference to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that
Chetan Lal is the full-blood brother of the deceased and thus a
highly interested witness. Given the history of animosity and
potential personal grudge between the parties, the possibility of
false implication with an intent to take vengeance cannot be ruled
out. In any stretch of imagination and even assuming for the sake
of argument that Chetan Lal named the petitioner, it is equally
true that his second statement is exculpatory. When two
contradictory versions exist, one inculpatory and the other
exculpatory then the question arises as to why the former should
be given precedence over the latter. In the realm of criminal law,
particularly where the liberty of an individual is at stake, the
settled principle is that if two views are reasonably possible, the
one favouring the accused should be adopted. It must be borne in
mind that in such circumstances, the opposing party often seeks
to prolong the detention of the accused.
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:09:13 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27510] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4048/2025]
7. It is a settled position of law that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty. Bail is not to be withheld merely on
the apprehension that the accused may have committed the
offence. The grant of bail does not amount to acquittal, discharge,
or exoneration. It is rather a matter of judicial discretion based on
the facts of each case. There is also no apprehension expressed
regarding the likelihood of the accused absconding. Considering
the totality of the circumstances and keeping in view the principle
that bail is the rule and jail is the exception and there is high
probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.
8. It is clarified that the above discussion is only in the nature
of a preliminary observation by this Court and shall not, in any
manner, be construed as a conclusive opinion on the merits of the
case. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present
matter.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 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
45-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:09:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)