Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Kanhiyalal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 2022
Decided On : 05-02-2022
Bail - SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act - The court allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order rejecting the bail application, ordering the release of the accused on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14a of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the rejection of his bail application in connection with FIR No.155/2021 for offenses under Sections 344 & 376 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(W)(i)(ii) & 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., found that the appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed and set aside the impugned order, ordering the release of the accused on bail.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the bail application of the appellant in connection with the mentioned offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the submissions of the appellant's counsel, the statement of the prosecutrix, and the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of the accused on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14a of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.155/2021, Police Station Pipad City, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 344 & 376 of I.P.C. and under Sections 3(1)(W)(i)(ii) & 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
Heard. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that petitioner and prosecutrix Mst. 'S' are known to each other and were regularly talking on telephone. He further submits that Mst. 'S' has travelled with the appellant to Jodhpur in public transport and stayed there for about 10 days in a rented premises without raising any alarm. He submits that the prosecutrix is a major married lady of 43 years. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal.
4. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and the fact that the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner get fortified from the statement of the prosecutrix Mst. 'S' recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that appeal of the appellant deserves to be allowed.
5. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Kanhiyalal S/o Sohanlal arrested in connection with FIR No.155/2021, Police Station Pipad City, Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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's decision was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the statement of the prosecutrix, in allowing the appeal and ordering the release of the accu....
The credibility of evidence and the lack of credible evidence against the appellant influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
The lack of evidence connecting the appellant with the murder and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the situation of the country and the jails influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal....
The interpretation of evidence and circumstances, including the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix, played a crucial role in the Court's decision to grant bail.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on a consideration of the arguments, the statements of the prosecutrix, and the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the country and jails can be considered as a factor in granting bail, especially in cases where no overt acts are reported against the appellants.
Interpretation of bail provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act and the consideration of facts and circumstances in granting bail.
The decision was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the non-support of the prosecution case by material witnesses and the bail granted to the co-accused.
The Court has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits 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
