Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Ummedsingh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1024 of 2021
Decided On : 03-12-2021
BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court found that the rejection of the bail application was not sustainable given the circumstances, particularly noting the similarity of the case to that of a co-accused who was granted bail. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion in bail matters and the need for a balanced consideration of the facts, ultimately deciding to grant bail to the appellant under specified conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ummedsingh, was in custody for alleged offenses under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. His bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, prompting the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the lower court's decision to deny bail was erroneous, considering the appellant's circumstances and the precedent set by a co-accused being granted bail.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the bail application was justified given the circumstances of the case and the status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the denial of bail must be substantiated by compelling reasons, and the similarity of cases among co-accused should be a significant factor in bail considerations.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail under specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.182/2021, Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, District Jodhpur Metropolitan for the offences under Sections 452, 448, 506, 323, 341/34 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Counsel for the appellant appeared and submits that similarly situated co-accused Bhom Singh has already been enlarged on bail and the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused. Accused-appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. The learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well in declining to release the appellant on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.
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 21.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Jodhpur Metropolitan is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Ummedsingh S/o Hemsingh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.182/2021, Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, District Jodhpur Metropolitan 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 court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
The court considered the contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and the anticipated lengthy trial period as grounds for granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court's decision was influenced by the change in the prosecutrix's statement and the expected lengthy trial duration in granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the prosecutrix's statement and the length of the trial, highlighting the importance of evidence and the practical considerations of trial duration in ....
The court's decision to grant bail to the accused-appellant was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record.
The court established that bail applications under the SC/ST Act must be evaluated with careful consideration of all relevant facts, including compromises and the treatment of co-accused.
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 established that the age of the prosecutrix and the completion of the investigation are significant factors in determining bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly in cases involving compromises and the health status of the injured party.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
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
