Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Insaf - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2021
Decided On : 01-10-2021
BAIL - SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT - The court found that the rejection of the bail application was not sustainable given the circumstances of the case, including the alleged compromise between parties and the granting of bail to co-accused. The court emphasized the need for a fair assessment of the bail application under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, leading to the decision to grant bail to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Insaf, was in custody for various offences under the IPC and the SC/ST 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 and not supported by the facts, particularly considering the compromise between parties and the bail granted to co-accused.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the bail application was justified given the circumstances of the case and the legal provisions under the SC/ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of bail must be based on a thorough consideration of the facts and circumstances, including any compromises and the status of co-accused, which were not adequately addressed by the lower court.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail subject to certain conditions.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant 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.158/2021, Police Station Udaimandir,
3. District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 452, 386, 379, 354, 365 of IPC and under Section 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. Case Bail Case No.274/2021 whereby, the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed the offences as alleged against him and he is innocent. The learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well as in declining to release the appellant on bail. It is also submitted that compromise has arrived between the parties and co accused have already been granted bail, so the appellant may be released on bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail made by the appellant.
6. 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.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that accused-appellant Insaf S/o Sh. Mohammad Ali shall be released on bail in FIR No.158/2021, P.S. Udaimandir, District Jodhpur, 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 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.
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 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 after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
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 grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to set aside the rejection of a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and grant bail to the appellant under the SC/ST Ac....
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
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
