Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Faraj – 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. No.260/2024 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 109(1) & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused Altmas has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.1996/2024 and an another co-accused Kabir has already been enlarged on bail by the competent Criminal Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of above named co-accused persons, who have already been enlar
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 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 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 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 determined that the appellant's circumstances warranted bail, as they were not worse than those of co-accused already granted bail.
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
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 considered the similarity of allegations with other co-accused persons who had been granted bail and the expected lengthy trial duration as key factors in granting bail to the accused-appel....
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
The court established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are 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
