Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Mukesh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 705, 797 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
[BAIL] - [SC/ST Act] - [The court analyzed the bail application under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act, determining that the rejection of bail was unsustainable given the circumstances, including the lack of pending investigation and the grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused. The court emphasized the importance of equal treatment under the law and the presumption of innocence, leading to the decision to grant bail to the appellants.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were in custody for serious offences under the IPC and SC/ST Act, and their bail applications were rejected by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the bail application could not be sustained, considering the arguments and the circumstances of the case.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case and the treatment of similarly situated co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principles of equality before the law and the presumption of innocence warranted the granting of bail, especially in light of the co-accused's bail being granted.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the order rejecting bail was set aside, granting bail to the appellants under specified 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 appeals have 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.82/2020, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354, 302, 323, 341, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act, against the order dated 31.03.2021 & 30.06.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Criminal Misc. Case (Bail) No.64/2021 & 101/2021 respectively, whereby the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have not committed the offences alleged as against them and they are innocent. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Narayan Ram has already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present appellants are not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Challan of the case has already been presented. No investigation is pending. The appellant is now in judicial custody.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.
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 appellants, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.03.2021 & 30.06.2021 passed by the Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused appellant Mukesh S/o Rugha Ram and Rugha Ram S/o Motha Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.82/2020, P.S.Maroth, District Nagaur provided each of them 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 the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, and similar cases should be treated equally under the law.
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 has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
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 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 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'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....
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, and the rejection of bail applications can be set aside if found 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
