Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
BHOMA RAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
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 couns
The principle of parity in bail applications allows for granting bail to an accused when co-accused have been granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. based on the principle of parity and the extended duration of the trial, emphasizing the lack of strong evidence against the accused.
The court emphasized the principle of parity in granting bail, particularly when co-accused have been released under similar circumstances.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
A court can grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by considering the duration of judicial custody and potential trial delays, without addressing case merits.
The court emphasized that the grant of bail is contingent upon the circumstances of the case, particularly in relation to co-accused and the absence of factors against bail.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
The absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against the accused justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of preventing unnecessary detention without risk of influencing witnesses.
The court emphasized that bail should be granted when evidence does not warrant continued incarceration, considering the totality of circumstances.
The decision highlighted the principle of granting bail based on the similarity of the case with a co-accused who had been enlarged on bail, and the importance of considering the facts and circumstan....
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
