Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Allu @ Arvind Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 11612 of 2021
Decided On : 21-09-2021
Bail - Criminal Procedure - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. regarding bail, emphasizing the importance of trial delays and witness credibility in granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while in custody for serious offences, with significant delays in the trial and issues regarding witness identification.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner deserved bail due to the prolonged trial and the unreliable identification of the petitioner by a key witness.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the delays in trial and the credibility of witness testimonies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the significant delay in trial and issues with witness identification warranted the granting of bail to the petitioner.
Result: The third bail application is allowed, and the petitioner is granted bail.
ORDER
1. The present 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.56/2011, Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353, 307, 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. The petitioner and the other co-accused persons are facing trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.3 Bhilwara Camp Mandargarh for the above offences. The petitioner is in custody from 05.09.2011. Out of the 127 witnesses cited by the prosecution in the calender of witnesses, till date, only 86 witnesses have been examined. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has after considering the merits of the case and the significant delay in conclusion of the trial extended benefit of bail to the co-accused Shivraj Singh by passing a detailed order dated 16.08.2021 in SBCRLMB No.14461/2020. It is relevant to mention here that the star prosecution witness Bheru Lal (P.W. 7) wrongly identified the accused petitioner in his evidence. The Coordinate Benches of this Court have granted bail to the accused persons viz. Ashok S/o Bansi Lal, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (4th Bail Application No. 10534/2021), Om Prakash S/o Mohan Ram, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (4th Bail Application No. 10533/2021), Sahi Ram, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No. 10156/2021, Umesha Ram S/o late Fagluram Bishnoi, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No. 8316/2021), Arun Kumar Gautam vide order dated 12.12.2012 (Bail Application No. 3105/2012), Alu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 31.05.2012 (Bail Application No. 3997/2012), Giriraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2013 (Bail Application No. 3994/2013), Harendra Singh vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1056/2014), Kanhai Singh vide order dated 04.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1194/2014), Arun Kumar vide order dated 17.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1370/2014), Moni Tomar @ Virendra Pratap Singh vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1793/2014), Arjun Singh @ Monu vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1794/2014), Mukesh vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1795/2014), Dinesh vide order dated 07.03.2014 (Bail Application No. 2209/2014), Sandeep @ Monti vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No.2530/2014), Sarvesh Singh vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No.2794/2014), Allu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 16.05.2014 (Bail Application No. 3894/2014), Shirvaj Singh vide order dated 17.09.2015 (BailApplication No. 6343/2015), Sachin Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11914/2015), Ajju @Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11915/2015), Niru Kushwah @ Narendra Pratap Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11917/2015), Allu @Arvind Singh vide order dated 25.01.2017 (Bail Application No.7226/2016), Ajju @ Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated 19.07.2017 (Bail Application No.2257/2017), Suresh Jain Puchhi vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail Application No.9196/2017), Suraj Singh vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail Application No. 10470/2017), Shivraj Singh vide order dated 07.02.2018 (Bail Application No. 1301/2018), Giriraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2019 (Bail Application No. 8472/2018), Suraj Singh vide order dated 30.01.2019 (Bail Application No.10651/2018), Suraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2019(Bail Application No. 5872/2019), Suraj Singh vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Bail Application No. 11995/2020), Kanhai Singh vide order dated 29.03.2013 (Bail Application No. 466/2013). Thereafter, the co-accused Giriraj has been granted bail by the trial Court.
4. In view of above and 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 i
The court established that prolonged trial delays and unreliable witness identification can justify the granting of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Prolonged detention without sufficient evidence can lead to the grant of bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The principle of parity in bail applications mandates that if a co-accused is granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to other accused in the same case.
The court established that bail can be granted based on the absence of injuries, the filing of a charge-sheet, and the duration of custody, reinforcing the principle that pre-trial detention should n....
The delay in the conclusion of the proceedings and the bail granted to similarly situated co-accused persons are significant factors in considering a bail application.
The principle of parity in bail applications, where similarly situated co-accused are granted bail, is a significant factor in determining the grant of bail.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial is impermissible, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The court established that the grant of bail can be influenced by the duration of custody, the nature of the offences, and the treatment of co-accused in similar circumstances.
The court may grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court established that bail can be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period, the trial is expected to be lengthy, and the offences are triable by a Magistrate.
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
