Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail in Police Encounter Case, Questions “Fabricated Evidence” by Prosecution

Substantial Grounds to Question Prosecution’s Case: High Court Grants Bail to Kaushala Ram in Police Encounter Incident

Jodhpur, July 15, 2024 – In a significant ruling, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur has granted bail to Kaushala Ram, a petitioner in a high-profile case involving charges under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act, and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni, presiding over the case, highlighted substantial grounds for questioning the prosecution’s case and the prolonged custody of the petitioner as key factors in the decision.

The case revolves around an incident on July 6, 2023, when a special police team tracked wanted criminals Om Prakash and Kaushala Ram to a location in the Baytu police station area. According to the police, the criminals fired indiscriminately at the team, leading to a confrontation that resulted in Om Prakash’s death and injuries to Kaushala Ram. The police also claimed to have recovered weapons and 332 grams of poppy straw from the vehicle of the accused.

Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar, representing Kaushala Ram, argued that the police had used excessive force, leading to Om Prakash’s death. He contended that the police’s account of the recovery of weapons and drugs was fabricated, emphasizing the lack of injuries among police personnel and the inconsistencies in the evidence presented, such as the bullet marks on the bulletproof jackets.

Prosecution’s Stance
Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate and Special Public Prosecutor, countered these arguments by underscoring the serious nature of the charges and the petitioner’s history of criminal activities. He maintained that the police acted in self-defense and that the recovery of weapons and drugs from the accused was legitimate.

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni noted the completion of the charge sheet and the significant discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence. He pointed out that the absence of detailed mentions of the poppy straw in the initial FIR raised questions about the veracity of the police’s claims. The court also took into account the fact that the petitioner had already been in custody since July 8, 2023, and that the trial was likely to take a considerable amount of time.

“The applicant has substantial grounds to question the prosecution case, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in detention for an indefinite period,” Justice Soni observed.

Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni emphasized, “Taking note of all these aspects, I do not intend to go into the merits of the matter but having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions with reference to material placed before me… I am inclined to grant the indulgence of bail to the petitioner at this stage.”

The decision to grant bail to Kaushala Ram is a critical development in this high-profile case. It underscores the court’s recognition of the substantial grounds for questioning the prosecution’s evidence and the importance of not subjecting an accused to indefinite detention without trial. This ruling may have significant implications for similar cases where the credibility of evidence is in dispute.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024