RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Madan Gopal Vyas, J.
Manohar Lal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2023
Decided On : 01-03-2023
[BAIL] - [SC/ST Act] - [The court found that the rejection of the bail application was not sustainable given the circumstances, including the nature of the injuries not being life-threatening and the prolonged judicial custody of the appellants. The court emphasized the need for a fair assessment of bail applications under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, leading to the decision to grant bail.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were in custody for alleged offenses under IPC and SC/ST Act, and their bail application was rejected by the Special Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The court determined that the rejection of the bail application was unjustified, considering the injuries were not life-threatening and the appellants had been in custody for an extended period.
Issues: Whether the appellants should be granted bail despite the charges against them under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the nature of the injuries and the duration of custody are critical factors in bail considerations, particularly under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the previous order was set aside, and the appellants were granted bail under specified conditions.
ORDER
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.231/2022, Police Station Gudamalani, District Barmer, for the offence under Sections 341, 327, 323, 325, 307/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(va) of SC/ST Act against the order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Barmer whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
2. Mr. Jagdish Vishnoi, present-in-person, submits that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that none of the injuries are found to be dangerous to life and are not on any vital part of the body of the injured. The accused-appellants are in judicial custody since 19.12.2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well as in declining to release the appellants on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellants.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
4. 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.
5. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Barmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accusedappellants, (1) Manohar Lal S/o Shri Babulal, and (2) Kishan Lal S/o Shri Amraram, arrested in connection with FIR No.231/2022, Police Station Gudamalani, District Barmer, shall be released on bail; 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, particularly considering the severity of injuries and the duration of custody.
The court established that bail applications under the SC/ST Act must be evaluated with regard to the specifics of the case, including the severity of injuries and the treatment of co-accused, ensuri....
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the order rejecting the bail application can be set aside if found unsustainable.
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's decision was influenced by the lack of specific allegations against the accused-appellant and the erroneous rejection of the bail application.
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'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 established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
The court established that bail can be granted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act when the trial is expected to be prolonged and no further investigation is pending.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.