IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Suresh Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLAS 450 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A - Bail application - The appellant, in custody for offences under various sections, sought bail after a co-accused was granted bail - The court noted no distinction in the cases and that the prosecution failed to show any apprehension of the appellant influencing witnesses or fleeing - The appeal was allowed, and the previous order denying bail was set aside. (Paras 1, 6, 7)
(B) Bail - Principles - The court emphasized that bail should be considered when the case is not distinguishable from that of co-accused already granted bail and when there is no substantial apprehension of witness tampering or flight risk. (Paras 3, 6)
Order :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
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.291/2024 registered at Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 11.02.2025 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. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused Shambhu Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 in Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.1895/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Shambhu Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail.
4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody since 29.08.2024; the challan has already been filed against the appellant before the competent Criminal Court and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.
5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.
6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of appellant influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Suresh Singh S/o Dalu Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.291/2024 registered at Police Station Asind, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
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 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.
Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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 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 established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
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.