Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Kaluram @ Kalulal – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. 327/2023 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 302, 201 , 394 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.
3. The allegation against the present appellant is of committing murder of Smt.Chhoti Devi on 09.11.2023.
4. Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards challan papers, learned counsel submitted that about 10 months after the murder of Smt.Chhoti Devi, police recorded statements of Dinesh and Preetam under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated that they had heard
The court established that delays in implicating an individual and the absence of strong evidence are critical factors in determining bail eligibility.
The presence of an accused at a crime scene does not establish guilt without specific allegations of their actions, warranting bail in lengthy trials.
The court emphasized that bail should not be denied without substantial justification, especially when prima facie evidence suggests potential false implication.
The court established that a lack of substantial evidence and the presumption of innocence are critical in considering bail applications under the SC/ST Act.
The court allowed bail for the appellant, finding no material distinction from a co-accused already granted bail and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing.
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 granted bail to the appellant, considering her absence from the crime scene and her pregnancy, despite serious allegations against her.
The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the victim's statements recorded under different sections of Cr.P.C. and the completion of the investigation against the appellant, leadin....
The court emphasized that insufficient evidence against the appellant warranted bail, reinforcing the principle of personal liberty during trial.
The court granted bail based on the appellant's custody duration and the release of similarly situated co-accused, without commenting on the merits 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
