S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 3969/2022:

1. Lawyers are abstaining from making appearance before this Court.

2. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order impugned passed by concerned court below for the offences under Sections 147, 302, 364A and 149 IPC in FIR No. 49/2021 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur West.

3. Ms. Suman Yadav, sister of the petitioner Mohan Yadav is present in person before this Court and submits that her brother has nothing to do with the alleged offence and he has been booked in the matter on the basis of confessional statement only. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from his instance. The star witness Sub-Inspector Sandeep Yadav, who has been examined as PW-16 in trial, had occasion to talk with the deceased regarding the condition in which he brought. He reached at the crime scene after the incident of beating had happened and the victim was being taken to other place in a car by the accused persons. When he asked the victim as to who gave beating to him, the victim did not name the petitioner Mohan Yadav. Another witness Salagram who has been examined in trial as PW-13 does not mention name of the petitioner as the assailant who was giving beating to the deceased. She, thus, submits that there is no other evidence against the accused which connect him with the alleged offence and he is behind the bars since long, therefore, concession of bail be granted in favor of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application by vehemently submitting that incriminating material is available on record to show the connectivity of the petitioner in the crime, therefore, the petitioner shall not be enlarged on bail.

5. Heard Ms. Suman Yadav, sister of the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and complainant.

6. Perused the material available on record, more particularly the charge-sheet and statements of PW(s)-13 and 16 (Sandeep Yadav and Salagram). What is emanating from the perusal of the charge-sheet is that the major part of the allegations depends upon confessional statement either made by the co-accused or by the accused himself. What would be the evidentiary value of the aforementioned statements in light of the Sections 24 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act This Court refrains from making any observation as the same may influence the trial, however, in light of the settled principle of law that the disclosure statement made by the accused to a police officer while in custody is admissible to a limited extent i.e. recovery or discovery of a new fact. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner came into picture on the basis of statement of co-accused. The star witness Sandeep Yadav who happens to be Sub-Inspector of Police and was patrolling on the road suddenly intercepted the vehicle in which the deceased and five accused persons were going somewhere. He, in the statement made before the trial Court, states that as soon he made attempt to intercept the vehicle, the accused person somehow made their escape good and he failed to identify as to who were the persons who fled away from the scene. He found the victim in a very dangerously ill condition and therefore he tried his level best to evacuate him to the nearest hospital. In the meantime, he tried to ask the victim as to who brought him in that condition and in reply to that he uttered some words, however, the name of the petitioner does not find place therein. The story of the prosecution that during the period when the deceased/victim was abducted he was taken in front of house of Salagram with a view to chastise and teach a lesson to him who happened to be near relative of the petitioner. PW-13 states nothing against the petitioner. In this view of the matter and looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and upon consideration of submissions made by the sister of the petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Mohan Yadav Son Of Puranmal Yadav 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.

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6052/2022:

8. Mr. Kajodmal, brother of the petitioner made submissions regarding the bail to some extent but later sought an adjournment when question was asked regarding the statement of PW-16, Sandeep Yadav in which name of Ramphool is mentioned.

9. List on 28.02.2023.