Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Dilip Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1224, 1235 of 2021
Decided On : 15-12-2021
BAIL - SC/ST Act - The court found that the rejection of bail for the appellants was not sustainable given the circumstances of the case, including their claims of false implication and the lengthy trial process. The court emphasized the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the seriousness of the charges under the SC/ST Act, ultimately deciding to grant bail under specified conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were in custody related to FIR No.149/2021 for offences under IPC Sections 153-a and 295, and Section 3(1)(t) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. They claimed false implication and sought bail due to the anticipated lengthy trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the reasons for rejecting bail were insufficient and that the appellants should be granted bail, considering the circumstances and the arguments presented.
Issues: Whether the appellants should be granted bail despite the serious charges against them under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the rejection of bail was not justified, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the potential for a prolonged trial.
Result: The appeals were allowed, the previous order rejecting bail was set aside, and the appellants were granted bail under specific conditions.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
2. The instant appeals have been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.149/2021, Police Station Barloot, District Sirohi for the offences under Sections 153-a and 295 of IPC and Section 3(1)(t) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Sirohi, whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. The accused-appellants are 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-appellants.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail.
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 appellants, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
6. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 07.12.2021 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST Act Cases, Sirohi is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Dilip Singh S/o Ganpat Singh & (2) Ganpat Singh @ Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Bheru Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.149/2021, Police Station Barloot, District Sirohi shall be released on bail; provided they furnish personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each and two sureties bond 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 right to bail should be considered in light of the circumstances of the case, including the potential for false implication and the duration of the trial process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the circumstances of the case, including the prosecutrix willingly residing with the accused appellant and later filing a false FIR due to fam....
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 established that in the absence of specific evidence linking accused persons to the alleged crime, bail should be granted, especially when the trial is expected to be prolonged.
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 has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of injuries and the length of the trial, as per the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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 considered the false implication of the appellant and the existence of a compromise as key factors in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application and ordering the release of the ....
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rejection of a bail application can be set aside if it is found to be unsustainable.
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
