Back
RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Gomdaram @ Govind Kaswa – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Key Points: - The court allowed bail under SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 Section 14A(2) due to insufficient evidence and prolonged custody (!) . - The bail order set conditions including personal and surety bonds and required disclosure of bank details and identification documents (!) . - The court noted injuries were not grievous enough to deny bail and that trial would take time, making rejection unsustainable (!) . - The trial court’s rejection order was set aside and the appellant was released on bail during pendency of trial with specified financial bonds (!) . - The decision emphasizes fair trial rights and balancing severity of alleged offences with likelihood of speedy trial (!) . - The judgment records the arguments: innocence claims, lack of direct nexus, and prosecution relying on surmises (!) . - Prosecution argued overwhelming evidence and gravity of offense; defense argued false case (!) (!) . - The order requires the appellant to appear on all dates and to comply with bail conditions (!) . - The judgment discusses the existence of injuries, including grievous-injury designation for Nos. 5 & 6 but on non-dangerous limbs (!) . - The case involves FIR No. 127/2024, Lunkaransar, District Bikaner for multiple IPC sections and POA Act sections (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Rajendra Prakash Soni, J. - Instant Criminal appeal has been preferred to enlarge the appellant on bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 and being aggrieved of the order dated 05.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in Criminal Misc. Case (Bail Application) No. 1070/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 127/2024, Police Station Lunkaransar, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 458, 308, 323, 342, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(Va), 3(2)V), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. It is argued that the appellant is innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him; that entire allegations so levelled by the police against the appellant is totally false and baseless; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the appellant and alleged crime, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the presen
The court granted bail to the appellant due to insufficient evidence and prolonged custody, emphasizing the need for fair trial rights.
The court established that the nature of injuries and the treatment of co-accused in similar cases are critical factors in bail considerations under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 in granting bail to the appellant for serious offense....
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....
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
