HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
SANTOSH SHANKAR RAO - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRLMB / 2079 / 2025
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, accused in a case involving conspiracy and fraud, claims false implication with no funds being transferred to him, as amounts were deposited in co-accused's accounts - The offences are triable by Magistrate, and the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable duration. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include the nature of the offence, duration of custody, and the fact that the trial may take time. (Paras 5-6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused in FIR No. 80/2023 under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC, alleging conspiracy and fraud involving multiple co-accused. The petitioner asserts he was appointed by co-accused for fixed payment and did not receive any of the alleged extorted funds.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just to grant bail due to the trial being triable by Magistrate and the lengthy custody period of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the allegations and the nature of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the nature of the accusations and the fact that the petitioner had been in custody for an extended period warranted the granting of bail without commenting on the case's merits.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 80/2023 registered at Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh for the offence under Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The main allegation of conspiracy and creating forge company and extorting money from various persons by duping them are against other co-accused Upendra Singh Rudradev, Gyan Prakash, Lallan Kumar, Ranjan Kumar, Kajal Jha, Rajni Singh and Sokhilal. Learned counsel further submits that no amount was transferred into the bank account of petitioner. The entire amount obtained from various complainant was deposited in the account maintained by co- accused Upendra Singh Rudradev and in their company’s account. It is also submitted that petitioner was appointed by co-accused Upendra Singh Rudradev on fixed payment. The accused- petitioner is in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are triable by Magistrate, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the grant of bail application.
4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. The allegation of procuring the money from various complainant by assuring them to appoint in the company is against co-accused namely Upendra Singh Rudradev and other co-accused. The entire amount obtained from the various complainant were also deposited in the account maintained by other co-accused, the other FIR instituted against the petitioner are also related to the same act.
5. Considering the above facts and taking into the consideration that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate, without expressing anything on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Santosh Shankar Rao S/o Shri Shankar Rav Patil, in connection with FIR No. 80/2023 registered at Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh 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.
Bail can be granted when the accused has been in custody for an extended period, and the trial is triable by Magistrate, without commenting on the case's merits.
Bail may be granted if co-accused have been released and investigation is complete, despite serious allegations.
Granting bail based on lack of evidence and expected lengthy trial duration.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when the sole allegation is peripheral and there is no evidence of conspiracy or intent to commit the crime.
Insufficient evidence, particularly the lack of witness identification and recovery of the weapon, justified granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence and co-accused released.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when there is insufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, especially when co-accused have been released on similar grounds.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.