Rajasthan High Court: Farjand Ali, J. dismissed the bail application of petitioner being accused of honour killing and observed that the investigating agency had left some facts unattended.
The facts of the case are such that the FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant who is the father of the deceased . The complainant stated that he is a resident of bundi and from last one and a half years his son was living in Kota. The dead body of his son was observed in “Barda of Jakhmund”. The petitioners were apprehended and were sent to judicial custody after investigation. The present bail application(s) was preferred by accused petitioners who are in judicial custody for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120- B and 364 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Counsel for the State relied on autopsy report, the last location of the deceased in the company of accused persons, death threats reported by the deceased on numerous occasions, CCTV footage as well as call details to oppose the present bail application.
The Court observed that the instant case has its own peculiar facts which are circumstantially diffusing smell of intent-full homicidal death on account of honour and prestige i.e., having a strong trait of honour killing.
The Court also observed that the substratum of the present case predominantly based upon circumstantial evidence, as no direct evidence or eye-witness is at stand-by for the same. More so, this Court is very well aware of the fact that the present case of the accused petitioner(s) is to be dealt to the extent of adjudication on the issue of bail only. Thus, the appreciation and meticulous evaluation of the facts and circumstances are not ordinarily warranted.
The exercising of judicial discretion as well as invoking the sense for exercising judicial discretion lies with the Court. In order to reach a plausible conclusion, over an issue placed before it, the character of such relevant facts and circumstances of the case are important. As the character of relevant facts and circumstances tends to display two probable sides of an issue; there the judicial discretion recognizes that side of an issue which is closer and more pregnant with sound legal traits based upon the parameters of Rule of Law. Thus, there is a fine distinction in between final hearing on merits and hearing a bail plea under section 439 CrPC.
The Court further noted that that there is no straight jacket formula for grant and dismissal of a bail but guiding by the judicial pronouncements on the issue of bail, it is clear that every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstance attached to it.
The Court observed that after perusing the charge-sheet, the chain of events tentatively showing a well-designed conspiracy and the complicity of every accused person is very much available on record.
The Court thus held the present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused petitioners at this stage. Resultantly, both the bail applications filed by the accused (s)are hereby dismissed.
[Bhim Saini v. State of Rajasthan, 2022 SCC OnLine Raj 992, decided on June 10, 2022]
Appearances
For Petitioner(s): Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. Aniket Sharma, Mr. Anil Upman
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ghanshyam Singh, Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, Mr. R.P. Vijay Mr. Digvijay Singh
