SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 285

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Aman Ali @ Devil – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRLMB / 2458 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, PP

Bail may be granted when no specific overt act is attributed to the accused and no recovery is pending, despite serious allegations.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 309(6)/3(5) - Bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) for offences related to inflicting injuries with a sharp weapon - Specific allegations against co-accused; no overt act attributed to the petitioner - Judicial custody and no recovery pending against the petitioner cited as grounds for bail. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Bail - Consideration for bail involves weighing the nature of allegations, custody duration, and the trial's likely duration - The court is inclined to grant bail without prejudicing the trial court's eventual findings. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.30/2025 for serious offences including inflicting injuries with a sharp weapon. The co-accused was alleged to have committed the overt act, while the petitioner had no specific allegations against him.

Findings of Court:
The court found no pending recovery against the petitioner and noted the lengthy duration of the trial.

Issues: The main issues were the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the justification for granting bail despite serious charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of specific allegations against the petitioner and the lengthy trial justified bail, emphasizing that findings were preliminary and should not influence the trial court.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) for offences involving injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon [1]. - The specific allegation of inflicting sharp injuries upon the victim, Omchand Prajapat, using a knife was levelled against the co-accused Firoz [3]. - It was submitted that no specific overt act was attributed to the petitioner [3]. - The petitioner was in judicial custody, and no recovery was pending against him [4]. - The petitioner's counsel argued that the trial of the case would take a sufficiently long time to conclude [4]. - The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, alleging the petitioner and co-accused inflicted injuries and snatched money and a mobile [5]. - The Public Prosecutor could not refute that no recovery was pending against the petitioner and that the specific act of inflicting injuries was attributed to the co-accused Firoz [5]. - The Court found that the specific allegation of using a sharp weapon was levelled against the co-accused Firoz and inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail [6]. - The bail application was allowed, and the petitioner, Aman Ali @ Devil, was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each [7]. - The Court clarified that its observations were for the limited purpose of the bail application and should not prejudice the trial court [8].

How to determine the eligibility for bail when specific overt acts are attributed to a co-accused rather than the petitioner?

What are the considerations for granting bail regarding pending recoveries and the likely duration of the trial?


Order :

1. The present application for bail under Section 483 of BNS S (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.30/2025 registered at Police Station Sursagar, Jodhpur City-West, for offences under Sections 115(2) , 126(2) , 110 and 309(6)/3(5) of BNS .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the specific allegation of inflicting sharp injuries upon the injured – Omchand Prajapat with a sharp weapon (knife) has been levelled against the co-accused Firoz. Learned counsel further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioner.

4. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; no recovery is pending against the present petitioner and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, the petitioner and co-accused Firoz have not only inflicted the injuries upon the injured but have also snatched his money and mobile. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that no recovery is pending against the present petitioner and the specific allegation of inflicting the injuries upon the injured with sharp weapon has been levelled against the co-accused Firoz.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the specific allegation of inflicting the injuries upon the injured with sharp weapon has been levelled against the co-accused Firoz. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner Aman Ali @ Devil S/o Shri Ayub Ali arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.30/2025 registered at Police Station Sursagar, Jodhpur City-West, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top