Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, CJI., L. NAGESWARA RAO, SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.
Manish Solanki @ Bansi - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 137 OF 2019 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.7140/2018]
Decided on : 24-01-2019
Bail - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Release of accused appellant on bail
Fact of the Case:
The accused appellant has been in custody since 27th September, 2017, and the court found that further custody would hinder the conduct of the trial against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court, considering the totality of the facts and the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant, ordered his release on bail to ensure the conduct of the trial.
Issues: The issue was whether the accused appellant should be released on bail, taking into account the charges against him and the period of custody suffered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the totality of the facts and the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant in reaching the decision to release him on bail.
Final Decision: The order of the High Court was set aside, and the present appeal was disposed of with the decision to release the accused appellant on bail.
ORDER :
1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent State in spite of due service of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Leave granted.
3. We have perused the First Information Report as well as the charge-sheet filed. The accused appellant is in custody since 27th September, 2017. Further custody of the accused will come in the way of the conduct of the trial that will have to be held against him.
4. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case and the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant, we are of the view that the accused appellant ought to be released on bail. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court in connection with FIR No.216/2017 dated 18th September, 2017 under Section 365, 394, 323, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(d), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered with Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
5. The learned trial Court is free to impose appropriate condition(s) as it deems fit.
6. Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
