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

2021 Supreme(Raj) 1858

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Mahendra @ Bindu @ Mintu - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 439/2021
Decided On : 12-07-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Raj Kumar Saini through VC, for the Appellant; Mr. S.S Ola, P.P, for the Respondent; Mr. Anil Agarwal for Mr. S.S Sunda, Advocates, for the Complainant

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.

Headnote:

BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that the majority of charges were triable by a Magistrate, no injuries were reported, and the trial would take a long time, thus justifying the release on bail despite previous allegations against the appellant.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, in judicial custody since 10.09.2020, faced charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC. The bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, prompting the appeal.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted that most charges were triable by a Magistrate, no injuries were reported, and the trial would be lengthy, leading to the conclusion that the appellant deserved bail.

Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the nature of the charges, the absence of reported injuries, and the duration of custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lack of serious injuries and the lengthy trial process warranted the granting of bail, despite the appellant's prior allegations.

Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail upon fulfilling certain conditions.

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 194/2020, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar, for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354-B of the I.P.C. and under Sections 3 (1) (V), 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that except offence under Sections 3(1)(V) and 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST Act, remaining offences are triable by the Magistrate; accused-appellant is behind the bars since 10.09.2020; accused-appellant and complainant are neighbours; as per the statement of prosecutrix itself, there is no injury reported in this case; that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take long time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant has fervently and vehemently opposed the bail application of the accused-appellant and stated that earlier in another case, F.I.R was lodged against the accused- appellant and in that case, accused-appellant has been granted benefit of bail in that case and while on bail, accused-appellant harassed the complainant; that seven other cases have been registered against the accused-appellant.

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the fact that except offences under Sections 3(1)(V) and 3(2)(VA) of the SC/ST Act, remaining offences are triable by the Magistrate; there is no injury reported in this case; charge-sheet has been filed and that trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.02.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Mahendra @ Bindu @ Mintu Son Of Sobharam, arrested in connection with FIR No. 194/2020, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Alwar, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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.

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