Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Kuldeep & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7394, 8041, 9400, 11763, 11765 of 2021
Decided On : 13-09-2021
BAIL - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - The court granted bail to the petitioners who were in judicial custody since April 2021 for serious offences under the IPC, considering the lengthy trial process and the fact that the charge-sheet had been filed. The court emphasized the need for a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, leading to the decision to allow bail applications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.205/2021 for offences under Sections 365, 364-A, 395, 386, and 327 of the IPC since April 2021. They claimed false implication and sought bail due to the lengthy trial process.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioners had been in custody for an extended period, the charge-sheet was filed, and the trial would take a significant amount of time. The court decided to grant bail without commenting on the merits of the case.
Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted bail considering their prolonged custody and the status of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prolonged detention of the petitioners, coupled with the filing of the charge-sheet and the anticipated delay in trial, warranted the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Result: The bail applications were allowed, and the petitioners were ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the required bonds.
JUDGMENT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.205/2021, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 364-A, 395, 386 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code. (FIR has been filed under Sections 365, 395, 364-A and 384 of the Indian Penal Code.)
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case; petitioners are behind the bars since April, 2021; charge-sheet has been filed; and trial of the case will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioners.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and stated that three other cases have been registered against Kuldeep, one another case has been registered against Lokesh @ Lucky and one another case has been registered against Himmat Lal.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that petitioners are behind the bars since April, 2021; charge-sheet has been filed and 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 bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.
6. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners ? Kuldeep S/o Baldev Singh (Bail Application No.11763/2021), Lokesh @ Lucky S/o Manohar (Bail Application No.7394/2021), Sutaram @ Suntaram @ Suresh S/o Ramaram (Bail Application No.8041/2021), Vikram @ Vikky S/o Shankarlal (Bail Application No.9400/2021) and Himmat Lal S/o Shri Mohan Lal, (Bail Application No.11765/2021), all arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.205/2021, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- 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 prolonged judicial custody without trial, along with the filing of a charge-sheet, can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
The court established that bail can be granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C. when the charge-sheet is filed, co-accused have been granted bail, and the trial is likely to be prolonged.
The court established that the presumption of innocence and the circumstances surrounding the case, including the status of co-accused and the delay in trial, are critical in deciding bail applicatio....
The court established that prolonged judicial custody without pending investigations can lead to the granting of bail, reinforcing the presumption of innocence and the right to personal liberty.
The court established that prolonged custody and the nature of the offences can be sufficient grounds for granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court established that bail should be granted based on the principle of equality among co-accused and the consideration of trial duration, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court considered the triable nature of the offences, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the expected lengthy trial as key factors in granting bail to the accused-petitioner.
The court may grant bail to an accused-petitioner based on the length of time spent in custody, the filing of charge-sheet, and the expected lengthy trial, while also imposing conditions considering ....
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
