The Supreme Court has granted bail to a key accused in a case of cross-FIRs relating to murder and attempted murder, where both families are related to each other and also neighbours.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and J.K. Maheshwari said: "Suffice to say that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 14 months, the crucial witnesses have since been examined and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence.
Even otherwise, the witnesses are close family members of both sides, hence there is no likelihood of winning over the witnesses. Since the conclusion of trial will take considerable time, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail."
The bench noted that Mukesh Kumar was one of the accused in the FIR registered in district Jhalawar (Rajasthan) under Sections 143, 307, 452, 323, 504 of the IPC wherein subsequently offence under Section 302 of the IPC was also added.
The bench further noted that there is a cross FIR of the same date registered at the same police station under Sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 504, 324 IPC wherein subsequently Section 307 of the IPC was added in which the opposite party is alleged to have caused sharp edged injury between eyebrows and nose on the face of petitioner's uncle.
It recorded that the petitioner's version is that respondent No.2 (complainant) along with his brother Jankilal (since dead) reached his house with wooden sticks and gandasi and started a fight with his family members.
In a free fight, blows were exchanged and petitioner's uncle received a sharp edged injury on vital parts of the body attracting Section 307 IPC, the brother of complainant (deceased Jankilal) also received five blunt injuries on his head, to which he succumbed.
The petitioner was arrested on June 18, 2020, and released by trial court on a regular basis on June 22, 2021. The Rajasthan High Court in September 2022, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, which he challenged in the apex court.
After cancellation of bail, the petitioner has again surrendered on November 16, 2022. Advocate Namit Saxena, appearing for the complainant, submitted that the reason assigned by the high court was the trial court fell in error in extending the parity to the petitioner, with his co-accused, as the case of the accused to whom regular bail was granted was distinguishable in the light that no injuries were attributed to them.
As a word of caution, the apex court also directed that the petitioner and his family members as well as respondent No.2 and his family members will ensure that no untoward incident takes place again. It was clarified that any such incident shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.