1 42 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5439/2009. Shiv Lal Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :: 9th November 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Sandeep Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. M.A. Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: The petitioner is accused of offences under Sections 302, 394, 201 IPC; and has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the entire background of the facts, to the doubts as suggested, and to the inferences as attempted to be drawn, by the investigating agency; and strenuously contended that the petitioner has unnecessarily been made the scapegoat in this matter after the investigating agency had been unable to nab the culprits responsible for killing the petitioner's mother-in-law. The learned counsel emphasised that the petitioner had been the person who filed the FIR and earnestly prosecuted the matter for proper investigation. The learned counsel strenuously submitted that in the earlier round of investigation, though the investigating agency drew a blank, was unable to find the culprits, and proposed to file a negative report in the Court but then, the petitioner further pursued the matter and rather, the investigation was reopened at his instance. However, according 2 to the learned counsel, thereafter, the petitioner alone was chosen by the investigating agency to be named as the culprit on the basis of some bits and pieces of circumstances that are not of a chain and do not lead to even a valid suspicion what to say of any logical inference. The learned counsel contended that though the recovery of certain ornaments of the deceased from the house has been suggested as one of the circumstance but then, the fact of the matter had been that such items were very much there in the house even at the time of the earlier round of investigation and so far the question of divulging the facts about availability of such items during the earlier investigation is concerned, the facts were specifically clarified by the petitioner who was residing with his in-laws and so also by the petitioner's wife. The learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner at all had anything to do with the crime, he would not have retained the ornaments at the house. The learned counsel further submitted that the suggestion about the deceased being unhappy with the proposed engagement of her younger daughter Sukhiya and the petitioner being insistent for such relationship is too remote and baseless a circumstance so as to be regarded as any motive towards the crime of murder. The learned counsel yet further submitted that the suggestion about some inconsistency or incongruity in the statements of the petitioner and Gayad Ram as to who located 3 the dead body of the victim is also neither of any effect nor of any relevance; and that the other alleged circumstance of some incongruity about the place where the petitioner handed over the keys of the house to one Chandu Devi is also too flimsy and frivolous; and that the cryptic suggestion about the petitioner being earlier wearing dhoti-kurta but after the incident having changed his dressing to shirt-pant is also not even of remote connectivity with the crime concerned. The learned counsel further submitted that the investigating agency, in order to connect the petitioner, has attempted to come out with rather artificial and made up evidence in the name of a gold-smith Chandra Prakash during the second round of investigation who attempted to suggest the petitioner's alleged proposition to sell certain ornaments of the deceased. It is submitted that such suggestions were entirely missing during the first round of investigation; and have only been created 10 months later in the second round of investigation. The learned counsel argued that said witness admittedly did not know the petitioner Shiv Lal and rather the petitioner was taken to the shop for the purpose of identification of the place and then, such statements of the witness came to be prepared. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner had been residing with the deceased as ghar-jawai and there was hardly any reason or occasion for him to have caused her death. 4 The matter being considered at this stage only on the plea for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., this Court would not be making any comments on the merits of the case; and any comment occurring in this order would not be considered relevant for the purpose of the trial but after examining the challan papers and so also the entire of the CO File as placed for perusal by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is unable to dub, at this stage, the pieces of circumstances suggested by the prosecution as being entirely irrelevant, baseless or flimsy to the extent that existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner be ruled out altogether. This Court has noticed, apart from various other circumstances as indicated by the prosecution, a peculiar feature in the FIR itself which was lodged by none other but the petitioner that it contains such unnecessary and elaborate details like the ornaments worn by the deceased; and further about the suggestion of the petitioner having talked, on the day of incident, with a girl Chandu D/o Mangi Lal on the way for the purpose of handing over the keys, which appear to be rather of an attempt to prepare the grounds for innocence and even alibi. The details of ornaments on the person of the deceased, as stated in the FIR, definitely gets a beating from the fact that a substantial of such ornaments were found in the house itself. The incongruity in the fact as to who, the petitioner or Gayad Ram, located the dead body first cannot also be ignored at this stage as altogether irrelevant. Similar is the position about 5 the fact of the petitioner having changed his manner of dressing after the incident particularly when a dumped kurta was found a few meters from the scene of the incident. At this stage, even the witness Chandra Prakash, the gold-smith, cannot be ignored as altogether false a witness or giving out a cooked up story. Of course, for the matter resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution would be expected to prove not only the circumstances but the chain thereof to the ultimate satisfaction of the Court but in the overall circumstances of the case, at this stage of the proceedings, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of bail. However, in the overall circumstances of this case, it shall be expected of the learned Trial Court to proceed expeditiously with the matter curbing against any unnecessary delay. It is also made clear that rejection of this bail application at this stage shall not be of any impediment for the petitioner to apply for bail afresh at the later stage particularly after examination of the relevant witnesses. With the observations aforesaid, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner Shiv Lal S/o Harlal stands rejected at this stage. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//