Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 357
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
BHOMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1704 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Bail - Grant of bail is a discretionary power of the court, which must consider the nature of the accusations, the severity of the punishment, and the possibility of the accused fleeing from justice. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner was charged under various sections of the BNS and Mines and Minerals Act, with co-accused previously granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court deemed it suitable to grant bail based on parity and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused-petitioner should be granted bail considering the circumstances of the case and the status of co-accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of parity justified granting bail to the accused-petitioner, especially given the potential for a lengthy trial.
Result: Bail application allowed.
Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Order :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
| S.No. | Particulars of the Case | |
| 1. | FIR Number | 146/2024 |
| 2. | Concerned Police Station | Sanderao |
| 3. | District | Pali |
| 4. | Offences alleged in the FIR | Under Sections 303(2), 131(1), 132, 109(1) of BNS & 4 and 21 of Mines and Minerals Act |
| 5. | Offences added, if any | - |
| 6. | Date of passing of impugned order | - |
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Shankar Lal and Manga Ram have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the aforesaid co-accused who have already been enlarged on bail.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. co-accused Shankar Lal and Manga Ram have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024. Thus, on the ground of parity and considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
