Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Suresh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
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 appe
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.
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
