Back
SAMEER JAIN
Suresh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(Sameer Jain, J.)
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.168/2023 registered at Police Station Piplu, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 143, 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the incident of 27.06.2023, FIR was filed belatedly on 29.06.2023 by a complainant who was not even present there at the time. In the FIR, the present petitioners were not named and some other 14 accused were implicated by name. As per the PMR, the deceased, who was a sand smuggler, died due to asphyxiation and the death was not homicidal. As per medical report, out of the total 14 injuries sustained by the deceased, 3 injuries were about 15 days old and the other 11 injuries were also simple in nature and on non vital parts of the body. Further, the present petitioners, four of whom have no criminal antecedents, have been made accused merely on the basis of confessional statements made by the other accused persons to the police. Furthermore, some of the co-a
Bail applications under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act require careful consideration of the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence of involvement.
The court emphasized that the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the appellants outweighed their arguments for bail, highlighting the need to protect the victim's family's rights.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely FIR registration and proper representation for marginalized communities, deferring final adjudication to ensure compliance with legal standards.
The court emphasized that prolonged detention without substantial evidence serves no purpose, warranting bail for the accused.
The court emphasized that vague allegations do not justify denial of bail, particularly when the accused claims self-defense and has no criminal history.
Insufficient evidence and lack of specific allegations against the appellant justified the granting of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court ruled that lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses and prolonged detention justified granting bail under the SC/ST Act.
The court established that lack of specific allegations in the FIR and witness statements can justify the granting of bail under the SC/ST Act.
Bail can be granted in the absence of specific allegations against accused, especially when prolonged detention is involved.
The court established that lack of specific allegations in a suicide note can be a valid ground for granting bail under the SC/ST Act.
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
