After  an unsuccessful fifth attempt   at  bail  was rejected by the  Rajasthan High Court  an alleged accused  took the call to challenge  the judgment of the High Court  in the Apex court by way of a Special Leave Petition. Acquiescing to his prayer for bail the Supreme Court division bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale  granted him bail noting that the accused continues to be  in  custody since  more than two years while  six others  including  the    main accused  who had used the firearm weapon in the instant  case  were  already  granted bail.  

It was the case of the accused that at the time of commission of  offence  he was a young boy of 18 years  and he along with the co-accused were cutting branches of a tree when one branch accidentally fell on an electricity line causing damage to electrical appliances in  connecting  houses  in the vicinity leading to   skirmishes  among parties    and  a  F.I.R being  registered against the accused and 10 others by the  complainant, under Sections 143,323,341,336 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and under Section 3 and 25  of the Arms Act, 1959. 

 As stated by the accused, the  prosecution has not been able to bring on record anything substantive  either   in the F.I.R or in the subsequent chargesheet submitted by the investigative agency   to the  Rajasthan High court   indicating the  involvement of the accused in offences  for which he was being   held in custody.   He also called attention to the fact that only 13 out of a total of 32 witnesses had been examined to date and the trial will take time.  His role in the commission of offence was far too trivial as that of the co-accused inspite of which they were released on bail he stated. He further added that the sole allegation against him was that  he instigated the main accused to fire gunshots which regrettably led to the demise of the deceased.  

He argued that the complainant had altered his statements when  in reality  it was the case that all persons standing there instigated the main accused to fire gunshots and  not  accused. This was the stance taken by all the witnesses examined thus far as well, who stated that everyone around instigated the main assailant which is indicative   that the accused had no specific role in the offence.

The  court in its order directed that the accused be released on bail , on terms and conditions imposed by the Trial Court with a mention that in the event the trial court or the State finds that  the accused  who has been granted bail is delaying the trial, then by way of an application  they can approach  this court seeking recall of this order which will be entertained accordingly. 

Advocates for the Petitioner: AOR Namit Saxena. Pranav Khoiwal.

Advocates for the Respondent:  A.A.G Shiv Mangal Sharma, Saubhagya Sundriyal, AOR Nidhi Jaswal.

Case Details: Santosh Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan SPL (Crl.) no. 10011/2024.