Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Mahendra Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 2021
Decided On : 12-02-2021
BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence against him, particularly the prosecutrix's admission that no incident occurred. The court interpreted the provisions of the SC/ST Act and related IPC sections, concluding that the circumstances warranted the appellant's release on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was in custody for alleged offences under various sections of the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecutrix admitted that nothing significant happened, and the appellant had been in custody since September 2020.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence, particularly the prosecutrix's statement, did not support the allegations sufficiently to deny bail. The court noted that the trial would take a long time.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the evidence presented and the nature of the allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of substantial evidence against the appellant, especially the prosecutrix's admission, justified granting bail under the circumstances.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order denying bail was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail subject to certain conditions.
ORDER
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.213/2020, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 363, 366, 354-A, 376AB/511, 323 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act against the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the accused-appellant is in custody since 28.09.2020; the prosecutrix 'V? admitted that nothing was happened with her and she only supported that accused-petitioner took her to his Nohra and closed the door; charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and trial will take sufficiently long time.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and stated that as per statements of Krishnadevi, Jogendra and prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, there is a specific allegation against the accused-petitioner.
5. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record, particularly the statement of prosecutrix 'V recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Mahendra Singh S/o Adram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 213/2020, Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case; 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 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 in cases under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the strength of evidence is crucial in determining bail eligibility, and mere allegations without substantial proof....
The entitlement of the appellant to be released on bail during the trial under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 was established based on the overall facts an....
The court considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
The court established that in cases involving non-serious charges and prolonged trial durations, bail may be granted even under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
In exceptional circumstances, such as the prevailing situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts may grant bail to accused persons, even in cases involving serious offenses, to ensure their safety....
The principle of parity requires that if co-accused are granted bail, similar treatment should be extended to the appellant unless distinguishable circumstances exist.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, despite the appellant being declared absconder and ....
The court established that an accused's right to a fair trial must be upheld, and justifiable reasons for absence from court can warrant the granting of bail, even in serious cases under the SC/ST Ac....
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
