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
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:-
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
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 ....
The court affirmed that in cases triable by Magistrates, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised liberally, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the importance of not prolonging dete....
The judgment establishes that in cases triable by Magistrates, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised liberally, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The judgment establishes that in cases triable by Magistrates, the discretion to grant bail should be exercised liberally, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Even if the accused is a habitual offender, recidivism does not automatically negate the right to bail, especially for minor offenses. The presumption of innocence must be upheld.
The main legal point established is that bail should be the rule and its denial the exception, especially when the principal offence alleged is a bailable one.
The right to be released on bail under Section 437(6) of the Code is not absolute but subject to the discretion of the Magistrate, to be exercised in exceptional cases.
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.