Case: SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

3. According to the prosecution, the accused used to eve-tease the sister of the defacto complainant (appellant herein). Subsequently, brother-in-law of the complainant [deceased] tried to intervene in the matter and warned the accused persons to stay away from his sister-in-law and other family members. It is alleged that because of the aforesaid intervention by the deceased, the accused harbored enmity against him. Further it is alleged that the accused persons called the deceased to an isolated place and killed him. A complaint was registered on 16.09.2014 before the jurisdictional police regarding the disappearance of the deceased. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint an FIR being Crime No. 273/2014 was registered under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC. After the recovery of the dead body of the deceased, Section 302 was also added. During the investigation, the involvement of the present accused is alleged to have been revealed. After completion of the investigation, I.O. has filed a charge-sheet No. 20140334/2014 dated 30.11.2014 against the respondent accused under Section 302 and 201 of IPC and the trial is pending in Session Case No. 03/2015 (11/2015).4. The accused-respondents herein had filed a bail application before the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur being SBCR Misc. Bail Application No. 5858 of 2016. The High Court by the impugned order has enlarged the accused-respondents on bail. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court granting the regular bail to the accused-respondents, the de-facto complainant (appellant herein) is in appeal before this Court.

Court's reasoning:
7. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, we are of the opinion that the allegations are very serious in nature and the apprehension, expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant herein, that the accused may misuse the freedom and try to subvert the prosecution and threaten the witnesses and the family members of the complainant cannot be lightly brushed aside. The High Court has granted the bail to the accused entirely relying on the fact that the present case is based on the circumstantial evidence. At this stage, we do not wish to express any opinion on the aforesaid aspect lest any remark made in the order might cause prejudice to either the accused or the prosecution in the trial. In facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that grant of bail to the accused at this stage would not be in the interest of justice.