Back
M. M. SUNDRESH, RAJESH BINDAL
Saikul @ Sakil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. charges and circumstances of appellant (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. granting bail due to circumstances (Para 4) |
| 3. conclusion and order granting bail (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has been charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860.
3. The appellant has been in incarceration for more than two years. We have been informed that 22 out of 36 witnesses have already been examined. The appellant does not have any prior criminal antecedents, and we are dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence.
4. Considering the above, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and grant bail to the appellant.
5. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant is granted bail, on terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
6. The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court granted bail based on the lengthy incarceration of the appellant and insufficient witness examination, emphasizing the need for timely judicial proceedings.
Bail granted under exceptional circumstances due to lengthy custody and lack of eyewitness in circumstantial evidence case.
Bail – Long period of incarceration as an undertrial prisoner is a valid ground to grant bail.
Prolonged incarceration and hostile witness testimony can justify granting bail to an accused.
The court held that prolonged incarceration without necessity warrants the grant of bail to an accused.
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
