Back
SAMEER JAIN
Mohh. Israr Alias Kallu S/o Mohd. Muak – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The present appeal is preferred under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) arising out of F.I.R. No. 55/2022 for offences under sections 115, 342, 343, 364, 302, 201, 120B, 37 of I.P.C. and under sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
2. In a nutshell the background of the matter in hand is that an F.I.R. bearing number 55/2022 was registered by the complainant–respondent no. 2 at Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer on 07.02.2022 for offence under section 365 of I.P.C. (Annexure-1). Resultant to which, after concluding the investigation the police authorities submitted a charge-sheet against seven accused persons, including the appellant.
3. Learned Counsel representing the appellant had averred that the appellant is incarcerated from a prolonged time (approximately 38 months); is a young man and is the sole bread-earner of the family. Moreover, the instant appeal is preferred under the light of the provisions of the fundamental and the constitutional guarantees as enshrined under Article(s) 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the material wi
Bail is the rule, and incarceration should be the exception, requiring careful consideration of the nature of the crime and potential for witness tampering.
The court determined that the appellant's circumstances warranted bail, as they were not worse than those of co-accused already granted bail.
The court determined that the appellant's case was not distinguishable from co-accused granted bail, leading to the conclusion that bail should be granted without evidence of witness tampering or fli....
The court applied the principle that the bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases of atrocity against SC and ST shall not apply unless a prima facie case is made out, as established in the jud....
The principle of parity requires that if co-accused are granted bail, similar treatment should be extended to the appellant unless distinguishable circumstances exist.
The court established that an accused should be granted bail when co-accused in similar circumstances have been released, emphasizing the principle of parity in bail applications.
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
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 considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
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
