Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Mukesh Jain - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 985 of 2021
Decided On : 03-12-2021
BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court found that the rejection of bail was not sustainable given the circumstances of the case, particularly considering the prosecutrix's statement regarding consent in the marriage. The court emphasized the need for a balanced approach in bail applications under the SC/ST Act, leading to the decision to grant bail to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Mukesh Jain, was in custody for alleged offences under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, prompting the appellant to file an appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the lower court's decision to deny bail was erroneous, particularly in light of the prosecutrix's statement indicating consent in the marriage.
Issues: Whether the rejection of bail was justified based on the facts presented, including the nature of the allegations and the prosecutrix's consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the circumstances surrounding the case, including the prosecutrix's consent, warranted a reconsideration of the bail application, emphasizing the importance of a fair assessment in such matters.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail under specified conditions.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.120/2021, P.S. Mahila Thana, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 376, 498-A, 406 IPC and Section 3(1) (S), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.201/2021 (CIS No.201/2021) whereby, the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the statement of the prosecutrix, she arranged the marriage with the appellant. If anything happened, it was with the consent of the prosecutrix. The learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well as in declining to release the appellant on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
5. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case 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 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused appellant Mukesh Jain S/o Kistur shall be released on bail in FIR No.120/2021, P.S. Mahila Thana, Udaipur 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 consent in a marital context can influence bail decisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, highlighting the necessity for careful consideration of all facts ....
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 established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, and similar cases should be treated equally under the law.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the fact of compromise and the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application an....
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems the order cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court established that delays in filing FIRs and the status of investigations are critical factors in bail considerations under the SC/ST Act, allowing for a more nuanced approach to bail applica....
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems that the circumstances warrant the release of the accused on bail.
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) act, particularly in relation to the grant of bail to the accused-app....
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
