IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
Vikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Bail - SC/ST Act - The court set aside the order rejecting the bail application and granted bail to the accused-appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking bail in connection with FIR No.41/2021. The bail application was rejected by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur.
Finding of the Court:
After considering the arguments, the court 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 whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the case under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the arguments and the circumstances available on record and concluded that the order rejecting the bail application was erroneous.
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 furnishing the specified bonds.
JUDGMENT
Madan Gopal Vyas, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.41/2021, Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 365, 302, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act against the order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that service upon respondent No.2 has been completed, despite service, no one appears on behalf of respondent No.2-complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that eye-witnesses, viz., Veniram, Ganeshlal and Sukhlal @ Chhoga have not supported the story of prosecution and have turned hostile. It is also submitted that another witnesses, viz, Mangilal, Bhura @ Bhuri Lal, Babaru have also turned hostile. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused viz, Ganpat Singh, Lal Singh and Mahipal Singh have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.12.2021 and 11.06.2021 respectively and the case of the present appellant is similar to those of the co-accused. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well as in declining to release the appellant on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record 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.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 24.03.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Vikram Singh S/o Gamer Singh, arrested in connection with FIR No.41/2021, Police Station Dabok, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail; provided he 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 facts and circumstances of the case, and the rejection of a bail application can be set aside if it is found to be unsustainable.
The court's decision was influenced by the lack of specific allegations against the accused-appellant and the erroneous rejection of the bail application.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the order rejecting the bail application can be set aside if found unsustainable.
The existence of a compromise and the length of time in judicial custody can be considered in granting bail under the SC/ST Act.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly considering the severity of injuries and the duration of custody.
The court established that in cases involving non-serious charges and prolonged trial durations, bail may be granted even under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
The court established that bail can be granted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the trial is expected to be prolonged and no further investigation is pending.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.