Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2022
Decided On : 09-05-2022
Bail - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act - The court set aside the order rejecting the bail application and allowed the appeal, ordering the release of the accused on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14a (2) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act against the rejection of the bail application in connection with FIR No.184/2020 for offences under Sections 302/34-201 of IPC and Section 3(1)(S)(2)(Va) of SC/ST act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the arguments, found that the order rejecting the bail application cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to be released on bail.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant, and the similarity of the appellant's case to that of the co-accused who had been granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and concluded that the order rejecting the bail application could not be sustained.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the bail application was set aside. The accused appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14a (2) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.184/2020, P.S. arakshi Kendra Sangaria, Distt. Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 302/34-201 of IPC and Section 3(1)(S)(2)(Va) of SC/ST act, against the order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.19/2022 (CIS No.19/2022) whereby, the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that co-accused Manoj Kumar has already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court and case of the appellant is similar to that of the co-accused. It is also submitted that the complainant-Indra Devi has been examined in the trial court as PW-1 and she has not named the present appellant. The appellant is in judicial custody since 25.04.2020 and trial of the case will take a sufficient long time. In these circumstances, the appellant may be released on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
5. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh is set aside. It is ordered that the accused appellant ajay Kumar S/o Jag Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.184/2020, P.S. arakshi Kendra Sangaria, Distt. Hanumangarh provided he/she/each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems that the order cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems that the circumstances warrant the release of the accused on bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the fact of compromise and the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application an....
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, and similar cases should be treated equally under the law.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the bail provisions under the SC/ST Act and the consideration of the circumstances and arguments presented.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems the order cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems that the order cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
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
