SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Raj) 519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Mahendra Kumar S/o Lacha Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3666/2024, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14478/2023, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15197/2023, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15198/2023
Decided on : 15-04-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Pradeep Shah, Mr. Deepak Leelawat, Mr. S.S. Choudhary
For the Respondent: Mr. Anil Joshi, AAG assisted by Mr. Pallav Sharma, Mr. Rjast Chhaparwal, Mr. Rajendra Singh IPS, Mr. Kishore Singh ASP, Commissioner, Jodhpur.

IMPORTANT POINT
In cases involving offences triable by a Magistrate, the court should adopt a liberal approach towards granting bail, particularly when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial, and the investigation is complete.

Headnote:

BAIL - BAIL APPLICATIONS UNDER CRPC - Section 439, Section 437, Section 29, Section 235, Section 255, Section 360, Section 428 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 439 and 437 of the CrPC, emphasizing the discretion of Magistrates in granting bail for non-bailable offences. It highlighted that the offences in question were triable by a Magistrate and that the accused had been in custody for over six months without a trial conclusion. The court interpreted the provisions to support a liberal approach towards bail in such cases, especially when the investigation was complete and the charge sheet filed. The court concluded that keeping the accused in custody would unjustly elongate their potential sentence, thus granting bail.

Fact of the Case:

The accused-petitioners filed bail applications under Section 439 of the CrPC, arguing that no case was made out against them for the alleged offences of cheating and forgery under various sections of the IPC. They contended that their incarceration was unwarranted and based on conjectures.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused had been in custody for over six months, the case was triable by a Magistrate, and the principal accused had been apprehended. The court noted that the alleged offences were serious but emphasized the need for a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Issues: Whether the accused-petitioners should be granted bail considering the nature of the offences, the duration of their custody, and the ongoing trial process.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in cases triable by a Magistrate, a liberal approach should be adopted for bail unless there are compelling reasons to deny it. The court emphasized the importance of not prolonging custody unnecessarily, especially when the investigation was complete and the trial was pending.

Final Decision: The bail applications were allowed, and the accused-petitioners were granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing these bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No.

Particulars of the Case

1.

FIR Number

265/2023

2.

Concerned Police Station

Basni

3.

District

Jodhpur City West

4.

Offences alleged in the FIR

Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 474 & 120-B of the IPC

5.

Offences added, if any

-

6.

Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.3666/2024)

20.03.2024

6-A

Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.14478/2023)

21.10.2023

6-B

Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.15197/2023)

24.11.2023

6-C

Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.15198/2023)

24.11.2023

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. The petitioners are behind the bars since more than six months. The case is triable by Magistrate in which, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed against them. The principal accused Tushar has also been apprehended now and thus, the judicial proceeding would take a long time to come to an end.

6. It is revealing that for the purpose of providing assistance and welfare to the poor persons, the State Government brought a project named RGHS so as to give them relief in medical expenses. The petitioners have committed an offence of preparing false documents and misappropriation of amount thereby causing huge loss to the public exchequer. No doubt, it has been fully planned and well conspired crime. The involvement of the petitioners in commission of the crime is also reflecting from the charge sheet, however, the fact cannot be ignored that the alleged offences are exclusively triable by Court of Magistrate and they are behind the bars since September 2023. Even the charge sheet had been submitted in this case vide charge sheet No.1 dated 22.12.2023 and during the pendency of the entire trial, keeping the petitioners behind the bars would not be justifiable.

7. Dealing with an identical issue in which offence are exclusively triable by the Court of Magistrate, this Court vide order dated 07.10.2023, has made an elaborate discussion in the matter of Dharmendra Vs. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11484/2023. The relevant part is being reproduced herein below:-

    “6. It is noticed that all the offences alleged against the petitioner as contained in the charge-sheet are triable by a Court of Magistrate. It is run of the mill for High Courts as well as Hon’ble the Apex Court to grant bail in cases concerning offences that are triable by Magistrate. It is deemed imperative by this Court to enunciate and elaborate upon the theory and reasoning owing to which it is justifiable to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC in matters involving commission of offences triable by Magistrate.

7. The jurisprudence begins right from Section 437 of the Code which is the sole provision in the entirety of criminal statutory literature that provides for grant of bail as Section 439 of CrPC merely preserves and recognizes the special powers of the Session Courts and High Courts to grant bail which leads to the logical inference that the discretion vested in the Magistrates is exclusive. Moreover, there is nothing presc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top