HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 31 / 2025
(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Appeals filed against rejection of bail applications by Special Judge - Injuries inflicted were grievous but not life-threatening - Co-accused granted bail - Court inclined to grant bail to appellants considering concluded investigation and judicial custody. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4)
(B) Judicial Custody - The appellants are in judicial custody, and the trial will take a long time, warranting consideration for bail. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellants are in custody for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, with bail applications rejected by the Special Judge. The incident occurred on 16.05.2024, and co-accused have been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The Court decided to grant bail to the appellants, setting aside the previous orders rejecting bail applications.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants should be granted bail considering the nature of injuries and the status of the investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded, justifying the grant of bail.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Order :
1. These appeals have been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2024, registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 458, 365, 307, 323, 382 and 143 IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the orders dated 20.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the alleged incident which occurred on 16.05.2024, the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants upon the injured are though grievous in nature but the same are not dangerous to life. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused persons Ajay Kumar (S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1674/2024), Jagdish Kumar @ Jaggu (S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1378/2024), Binja Singh @ Kirat Singh (S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1466/2024) and Devendra Singh @ Jasan (S.B. Cr. Appeal No.1807/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 17.12.2024).
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody; the investigation against the appellants has already been concluded; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellants.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present appellants, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to refute the facts that the investigation against the appellants has already been concluded; and the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants upon the injured are though grievous in nature but the same are not dangerous to life/life threatening. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail.
7. Consequently, these instant appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 20.11.2024 and 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Mohit Kumar S/o Vilayat Kumar and (2) Gurjant @ Janta S/o Lakhvant Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.111/2024, registered at Police Station Kesarisinghpur, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of appeals.
9. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
10. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
The court ruled that the nature of injuries and completion of investigation are critical factors in bail decisions, emphasizing that serious allegations do not automatically warrant denial of bail.
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.
In exceptional circumstances, such as the prevailing situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic, courts may grant bail to accused persons, even in cases involving serious offenses, to ensure their safety....
The principle of parity in bail applications under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires that co-accused in similar circumstances should be granted bail unless there are significant disti....
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 has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rejection of bail applications can be set aside if found unsustainable.
The court established that bail applications under the SC/ST Act must be evaluated with regard to the specifics of the case, including the severity of injuries and the treatment of co-accused, ensuri....
The court held that bail should be granted when allegations do not involve grievous injuries and the trial may take a long time, indicating potential for unjust detention.
The court determined that the appellant's circumstances warranted bail, as they were not worse than those of co-accused already granted bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.