SHIV KUMAR SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE accused applicant was indicted before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Sikar for having committed murder of his wife, two sons and two daughters. Learned Judge vide judgment dated March 6, 2003 acquitted the accused of the charge under section 302 IPC. Assailing the finding of acquittal the State of Rajasthan preferred leave to appeal. This court vide order dated August 25, 2003 granted leave and sought the attendance of the accused through warrant of arrest. Consequently, the accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Invoking the provisions contained in section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has now made. . prayer to release him on bail.
(2.) MR. V. R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the accused applicant canvassed that the presumption as to innocency of the accused stands fortified on his acquittal by the trial court. The refusal of bail is never for the purpose of punishment. In view of the long period usually taken for disposal of appeals it would cause hardships if the accused who stood acquitted in trial is refused bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the State of Punjab vs. Bachittar Singh (1 ). Learned counsel next contended that the testimony of Kesar (PW. 16) was rightly disbelieved by the trial court as the most material part of her evidence at the trial had not been deposed while being examined under section 161 Cr. P. C. According to learned counsel the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence that falls short of the required standard of proof. In support of the submission learned counsel relied upon Anil Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2), Virendra vs. State of Delhi (3), and Kanhai Mishra vs. State of Bihar A close look at record shows that the accused applicant was charged under Section 302 IPC for having committed murder of his five family members. Under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the accused raised plea of alibi and stated that on the date of incident he had gone to Bikaner but this plea appears to be false as he was seen at his house on the said day by Kesar (PW. 16) at 10 PM and in the next morning five dead bodies were found in his house. We have perused both the statements of Kesar (PW. 16) deposed by her at the trial as also her police statement (Ex. D-2 ). Having scanned entire material on record we find that this is not a fit case to release the accused on bail. The Apex Court in Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar (7), observed that these days when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Vijay Kumar vs. Narendra (6), was the case wherein their Lordships of the Apex Court laid down the principles in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder. It was indicated in para 10 thus:- " The principle is well settled that in considering the prayer for bail in a case involving a serious offence like murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, the Court should consider the relevant factors like the nature of the accusation made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing the serious offence of murder. " We do not find any difference between the principles that govern the release of the accused under Section 389 or under 390 Cr. P. C. In view of the fact that the accused appellant was throughout in confinement during trial and he is involved in a very serious offence, we instead of releasing the accused on bail, intend to dispose of the appeals expeditiously as possible. Appellant State of Rajasthan is directed to file paper book within one month. The appeal shall be listed thereafter for hearing.
(3.) FOR the reasons aforementioned the bail application being devoid of merit stands dismissed. .;