Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Dinesh Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11179 of 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under section 439 cr.p.c. for bail. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented for and against bail application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's assessment on granting bail. (Para 6) |
| 4. final ruling on bail with conditions. (Para 7) |
ORDER :
Farjand Ali, J.
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 135/2023 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Kareda |
| 3. | District | Bhilwada |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Sections 363, 376(2)(n), 509 of the IPC, Sections 5(L), 6, 13, 14 of POCSO Act and Section 66(E) of the I.T. Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | -- |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | 19.08.2023 |
2. Despite service upon the respondent No.2, no one has appeared on his behalf.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor submits a report as per which the information regarding the hearing of the bail plea has been provided to the complainant/victim, however, none has appeared. The report be taken on record.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. After going through the manner in which the incident took place as narrated in the FIR and taking into account the wedding invitation card and the colour photograph of the petitioner and the victim, this Court deems it appropriate accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
The court emphasizes the importance of presumption of innocence and potential delays in trial when considering bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Inordinate delay in reporting a crime and contradictions in the victim's statements can create reasonable doubt, justifying the grant of bail.
The prosecution must provide strong prima facie evidence to justify the denial of bail; mere assertions are insufficient for continued detention.
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for granting bail to an accused when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
Prolonged detention without trial violates constitutional rights; bail granted due to insufficient evidence and delay in proceedings.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. due to prolonged incarceration and insufficient evidence of cruelty linked to the cause of death.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to grant bail based on the nature of the alleged offences, the length of the petitioner's incarceration, and the applicab....
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the rule of granting bail at the pre-conviction stage, allowing bail when no substantial evidence against the accused is presented.
Bail should be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period without substantial evidence against them.
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
