Back
KULDEEP MATHUR
Vinod – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail appeal information and context. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding nature of injuries and bail. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. court's decision on bail entitlement. (Para 6) |
| 4. final order granting bail. (Para 7 , 8) |
ORDER :
Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - Heard learned counsel representing the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
2. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved by the orders dated 16.09.2023 and 29.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Hanumangarh in Cr. Misc. Case (Bail) No.253/2023 (CIS No.204/2023) and 209/2022 (CIS No.194/2022) respectively rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants who are in custody in connection with FIR No.545/2018, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 148 , 302, 302/149, 447, 323, 323/149, 307 and 307/149 IPC and section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that allegation against the present appell
Court ruled that bail should be granted when allegations are less severe compared to co-accused, highlighting equal treatment and length of custody as justifications.
The court ruled that the nature of injuries and completion of investigation are critical factors in bail decisions, emphasizing that serious allegations do not automatically warrant denial of bail.
The principle of parity in bail applications under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires that co-accused in similar circumstances should be granted bail unless there are significant disti....
Bail can be granted in the absence of specific allegations against accused, especially when prolonged detention is involved.
The court established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the appellants deserving bail based on the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail based on the assessment of the injuries and the overall facts and circumstances of the case....
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
