Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Roshanlal & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2022
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) - Bail Application - The court set aside the order rejecting the bail application and granted bail to the accused appellants based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.364/2021, Police Station Kankkroli, Distt. Rajsamand for various offenses under IPC and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) act. The application was initially rejected by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Rajsamand.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order rejecting the bail application cannot be sustained and set it aside, granting bail to the accused appellants.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the bail application filed by the appellants under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured, ultimately concluding that the order rejecting the bail application cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of the accused appellants on bail.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - This is the second criminal appeal under Section 14-a of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.364/2021, Police Station Kankkroli, Distt. Rajsamand for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 436, 458, 459, 460, 354, 325 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(R)(S)(G)(W-i), 3(2) (Va) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) act against the order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Rajsamand in Criminal Misc. Bail application No.125/2021 (CIS No.173/2021) whereby, the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected. Earlier, the criminal appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed by this Court as not pressed vide order dt. 09.12.2021 with liberty to file fresh after filing of the challan.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that now, challan of the case has already been presented. Though the injured received grievous injuries but the injuries are on non-vital part of the body. The learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well as in declining to release the appellants on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.
4. 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 appellants, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
5. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Rajsamand is set aside. It is ordered that the accused appellants (1) Roshanlal S/o Chagganlal @ Chaggu Gujjar, (2) Madanlal S/o Rama Gujjar, (3) Madanlal S/o Rama Gujjar, (4) Badrilal S/o Chaina Gujjar, (5) Kishanlal S/o Chagganlal @ Chaggu Gujjar and (6) Kishanlal S/o Nanalal @ Nainalal Gujjar shall be released on bail in FIR No.364/2021, Police Station Kankkroli, Distt. Rajsamand provided 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 grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the injuries sustained by the injured.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of bail applications under the SC/ST Act and IPC offenses should be based on specific allegations and the severity of injuries.
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 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 grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offenses and the stage of the trial.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rejection of bail applications can be set aside if found unsustainable.
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 compromise between the parties and the absence of pending investigation in the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside the rejection of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and grant bail to the appellant under the SC/ST Ac....
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
