Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Nissar Mohd - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13662/2021
Decided On : 21-10-2021
BAIL - JUDICIAL CUSTODY - The court denied the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the accused-petitioner involved in serious allegations of defamation, extortion, and violations of the Information Technology Act. The court emphasized the gravity of the charges, particularly the uploading of obscene photographs, and determined that the case did not warrant bail at this stage, reflecting the legal principle that the nature of the allegations can influence bail decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, in judicial custody since September 23, 2021, sought bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 361/2021 for offences under Sections 500, 384 of IPC, and Section 67-A of the Information Technology Act, following a dispute with the prosecutrix 'S'.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the arguments from both the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor, noting the serious nature of the allegations, including the uploading of obscene photographs of the prosecutrix on social media.
Issues: Whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the serious allegations against him and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the allegations, particularly the involvement of obscene material and the potential impact on the prosecutrix, justified the denial of bail, indicating that the seriousness of the charges can outweigh the presumption of innocence at the bail stage.
Result: The bail application filed by the accused-petitioner was rejected.
JUDGMENT
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 361/2021, Police Station Raipur, District Pali, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 384 of IPC and under Section 67-A of Information & Technology Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that prosecutrix 'S' was engaged with the accused-petitioner but due to some dispute, their engagement broke and it could not be converted into marriage; accused-petitioner has wrongly been implicated for the offence punishable under Sections 500, 384 of IPC and under Section 67-A of Information & Technology Act; accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 23.09.2021; no investigation and recovery is pending against the accused-petitioner; further investigation and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application and stated that some obscene photographs of nude ladies as well as obscene photographs of prosecutrix 'S' were uploaded by the accused- petitioner on instagram I'd of the prosecutrix 'S'. He further stated that looking to the allegations made against the accused- petitioner and photographs, bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the photographs available in investigating diary, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.
Accordingly, the present bail application preferred on behalf of the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
The court established that serious allegations involving defamation and violations of the Information Technology Act can lead to the denial of bail, emphasizing the importance of the nature of the ch....
Bail applications under Section 439 require careful consideration of the gravity of the offence and the risk of influencing witnesses, especially in serious cases involving sexual offences.
The court upheld the principle that serious allegations of sexual offenses, particularly those involving non-consent, are sufficient grounds to deny bail.
Posting of obscene photographs on Facebook amounts to anti-social activity.
Bail may be granted when there is no incriminating evidence, and the accused has been in custody for an extended period.
Bail may be granted when the prosecution fails to provide substantial evidence, and there is no apprehension of tampering with witnesses or fleeing from justice.
The delay in lodging the FIR and the age of the prosecutrix at the time of the incident were crucial factors in the court's decision to grant bail to the applicant.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the similarity of the case with a previously granted bail to a co-accused as a basis for granting bail to the accused petition....
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to lack of evidence tampering risk and prolonged judicial custody, despite serious allegations against the petitioner.
The court established that bail can be granted when the nature of allegations does not warrant continued custody, especially in the absence of serious charges and with completion of investigation.
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
