Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
Dharmendra Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLAS / 1342 / 2024
Decided On : 11-03-2025
(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 307, 325, 323, 341 & 34 - Bail application - The appellants have been in custody for over five years, with the trial not yet concluded, and the prosecution witnesses have not been fully examined - The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the need to avoid undue punishment through prolonged custody - The previous orders of the Supreme Court regarding bail in similar circumstances were cited. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 7, 8)
(B) Bail - The court noted that the prolonged custody of the appellants without trial completion warranted the granting of bail, aligning with the principles established in prior Supreme Court judgments. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed by the appellants who have been in custody since late 2019 for serious offences, with the trial process significantly delayed due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the rejection of the bail application was unsustainable given the lengthy custody period and the incomplete trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prolonged custody without trial completion justified the granting of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lengthy custody period and the incomplete trial process necessitated the granting of bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the order rejecting bail is set aside.
Order :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.304/2019, Police Station Khajuwala, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 325, 323 , 341 & 34 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and against the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, District Bikaner whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
2. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that on previous occasion this Court has ordered the trial Court to expedite the trial and out of total 29 witnesses only 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. It is also submitted that as per the progress report, in which the trial Court has also mentioned that the prosecution witnesses deliberately did not come for their evidence. The accused-appellants are in judicial custody since 21.12.2019 and 20.11.2019 and they are in custody from last more than five years and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellants.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024) in which while granting bail it has been observed as under:
“9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co- accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court.”
4. A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in co
Prolonged custody without trial completion justifies granting bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
The court established that in cases involving non-serious charges and prolonged trial durations, bail may be granted even under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused and the absence of evidence justifying continued detention, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial.
Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the right to personal liberty under Article 21, warranting bail when trial delays are significant.
The court considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
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 principle of parity requires that if co-accused are granted bail, similar treatment should be extended to the appellant unless distinguishable circumstances exist.
Prolonged custody without trial can unjustly punish an accused, warranting bail under the presumption of innocence.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is fundamental, and prolonged custody without trial violates this right.
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
