Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Kishan Kumar @ Pandu - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2021
Decided On : 06-10-2021
Bail - Criminal Appeal - S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - Sections 14A, 3(2)(v) - The court allowed the bail application based on the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR and the release of co-accused on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a criminal appeal under Section 14A of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, challenging the rejection of his bail application by the Special Judge. The appellant was in custody for serious offences but was not named in the FIR.
Issues: Whether the appellant, not named in the FIR, should be granted bail considering the release of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of the appellant's name in the FIR and the bail granted to co-accused warranted the acceptance of the bail application.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is granted bail.
JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 146/2021, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148 & 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 2/complainant through video conferencing from jail. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been named in the F.I.R. He further submits that the co-accused Yuvraj has been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide Order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 86/2021. The co-accused Roopraj alias Roopchand has also been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide Order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 101/2021. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may be allowed and he may also be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 2/ complainant opposes the appeal.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and the fact that the co-accused have already been released on bail by the trial court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be accepted.
6. Consequently, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned Order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant - Kishan Kumar @ Pandu S/o Shiv Narayan arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 146/2021, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
JUDGMENT
Rameshwar Vyas, J. - The instant criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 146/2021, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 307, 341, 323, 147, 148 & 149 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 2/complainant through video conferencing from jail. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been named in the F.I.R. He further submits that the co-accused Yuvraj has been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide Order dated 20.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 86/2021. The co-accused Roopraj alias Roopchand has also been enlarged on bail by the trial court vide Order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 101/2021. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may be allowed and he may also be enlarged on bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and the respondent No. 2/ complainant opposes the appeal.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumsta
The court established that the absence of an accused's name in the FIR and the granting of bail to co-accused can justify the granting of bail.
The court established that the absence of the appellant's name in the F.I.R. and the granting of bail to co-accused justified the granting of bail to the appellant under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of ....
The principle of parity in bail applications under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, which mandates that similarly situated individuals should receive similar treatment in bail decisions.
The court established that the severity of injuries and absence of prior criminal records are critical considerations in granting bail under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court may grant bail to an appellant under the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act based on the circumstances and the bail granted to similarly situated co-accused, without expressing any opinio....
The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the injuries, the likelihood of the trial's conclusion, and the provisions of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of atrocities) act, 2015.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the fact that star witnesses had turned hostile, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The court established that in cases involving multiple accused, the presence of no direct allegations against an individual can be a significant factor in granting bail.
The court considered the age of the prosecutrix, circumstances of the alleged incident, and the delay in filing the report as key factors in granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 14-a(2) of the SC/ST act, which allowed for the appellant's release on bail based on the 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
