Back
SANDEEP MEHTA
Khet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Key Points: - The case concerns a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offenses under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504, and 509/34 IPC [17000603840001]. - The role attributed to the petitioners and a co-accused, Swaroop Singh, was almost identical, despite the petitioner Kalyan Singh allegedly being armed with a knife, no injury was caused by a sharp weapon [17000603840002]. - The bail application of co-accused Swaroop Singh was initially rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge but later granted by the High Court [17000603840002]. - The bail application of the petitioners was rejected by the same Sessions Court, which failed to refer to the High Court's order granting bail to Swaroop Singh [17000603840003]. - Subordinate courts and the High Court have concurrent jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for considering bail applications [17000603840004]. - Parity must be maintained when considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, and bail should not be dismissed for a subsequently arrested accused on the same footing if others with similar allegations have been granted bail, unless there are distinguishable features or special circumstances [17000603840004]. - For judicial discipline, subordinate courts must refer to and duly regard orders of the High Court when deciding bail applications of co-accused in the same case [17000603840005]. - The Sessions Court's rejection of the petitioners' bail application without considering the High Court's order for a similarly situated co-accused was a gross disregard of the higher court's order [17000603840006]. - The approach of denying bail to the petitioners when a similarly situated accused was granted bail is deprecated as it disregards the High Court's order, increases the court's docket, and prolongs custody without justification [17000603840007]. - The bail application of the petitioners was accepted, and they were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing specified bonds [17000603840008][17000603840009].
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Mehta, J.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in relation to F.I.R. No. 221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer, for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504 and 509/34 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. On perusal of the impugned order and the FIR, it is apparent that the role attributed to the present petitioners Khet Singh and Kalyan Singh and the co-accused Swaroop Singh is almost identical. Though as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon. The bail application of the co-accused Swaroop Singh was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer by order dated 05.09.2020 whereupon, he approached this Court by filing Bail Application No.9870/2020, which was accepted vide order dated 07.10.2020.
4. The application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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
