"No One Can Be Arrested Simply On Basis Of Assumption & Perception": Murder Accused Argues In Rajasthan High Court, Secures Bail

The appellant's counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however no circumstances are available except hearsay evidence. Placing reliance on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant's counsel submitted that oral evidence of any incident must be direct in nature. She added that if it relates to a fact which could be seen, then it must be the evidence of that person who says that he saw the incident.

Essentially, present appeal was filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the accused who was custody in connection with an FIR registered at Kota for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Justice Farjand Ali, while allowing the criminal appeal, observed, "Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail."

The court ordered that the accused-appellant shall be released on bail after furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties each for the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

In addition to above, the appellant's counsel argued that the recovery of trident is nothing but a farce as the prosecution witness deposed in the trial that the trident was lying on the spot. She also submitted that accused's incarceration would not be required for any purpose as there seem to be a case of no offence.

Adv. Neha Gyamlani appeared for the appellant while PP MS Saini appeared for the respondent-state.

Case Title: Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171