Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
Sunil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2077 of 2022
Decided On : 14-12-2022
Bail - SC/ST Act - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application, granting 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 against the rejection of his bail application in connection with FIR No.285/2022, for offenses under various sections of IPC and SC/ST Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that a compromise had been reached between the appellant and the complainant, and the complainant did not want any proceedings against the appellant. Considering the facts and circumstances, the court concluded that the order rejecting the bail application could not be sustained and deserved to be set aside.
Issues: The issues involved the rejection of the bail application, the alleged false implication of the appellant, and the existence of a compromise between the appellant and the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the existence of a compromise between the appellant and the complainant, the length of time the appellant had been in judicial custody, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of the accused-appellant on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.
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.285/2022, Mahila Police Station Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n), 354(C), 420 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r) and 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act against the order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that compromise has been arrived at between the appellant and the complainant and now complainant does not want any proceedings against him. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time. 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.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact of compromise.
5. 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.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, arrested in connection with FIR No.285/2022, Mahila Police Station Sri Ganganagar, 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 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'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 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 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 considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
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'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....
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
