The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Headnote:
Bail Application - Offence under Sections 341, 323, 376/511 of IPC - The court dismissed the bail application for petitioner No.1 but granted bail to petitioner No.2 Vikas, considering the absence of a specific role assigned to him and the expected lengthy trial duration.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were arrested in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 341, 323, 376/511 of IPC. The bail application for petitioner No.1 was dismissed, while bail was granted to petitioner No.2 Vikas.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the bail application for petitioner No.1 but granted bail to petitioner No.2 Vikas, considering the absence of a specific role assigned to him and the expected lengthy trial duration.
Issues: Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and deemed it just and proper to grant bail to petitioner No.2 Vikas.
Final Decision: The bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. was partly allowed, and it was directed that petitioner No.2 Vikas shall be released on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.22/2022 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Banswara, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 376/511 of IPC. They have preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the bail application on behalf of the petitioner No.1 Sunil. However, he seeks liberty to file afresh after filing of the challan.

3. Hence, the bail application on behalf of petitioner No.1 Sunil is hereby dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for.

4. So far as the petitioner No.2 Vikas is concerned, counsel for the petitioners submits that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner No.2 and he is in judicial lock-up and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner No.2 Vikas.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application filed by the petitioner.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner No.2 Vikas under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

7. accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is partly allowed and it is directed that petitioner No.2 Vikas S/o Labu shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.22/2022 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Banswara, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document