HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
HANUMAN RAM @ HADMAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 242 / 2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 483 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested after four years for running over a police officer, argued lack of intent to kill and absence of criminal antecedents - The Public Prosecutor could not refute these facts - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Judicial Custody - The court considered the duration of custody and the absence of prior criminal records as significant factors in granting bail. (Paras 4-5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.30/2021 for serious offences after a significant delay, with claims of no intent to harm the police officer involved.
Findings of Court:
The court decided to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the delay in arrest and the petitioner's clean record.
Issues: The main issues included the intent of the petitioner during the incident and the implications of the delay in arrest on the bail decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of criminal antecedents and the significant delay in arrest were compelling reasons to grant bail, without prejudicing the trial's outcome.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.30/2021 registered at Police Station Sanderao, District Pali, for offences under Sections 186, 332, 333, 353, 307/34 IPC.
2. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 14.02.2021, the petitioner ran his Isuzu vehicle over Dholaram, Sub Inspector, posted at Sanderao Police Station. In the alleged incident, which occurred on 14.02.2021, Dholaram, Sub Inspector has sustained serious injuries.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been arrested on 05.12.2024 i.e. after about four years from the date of alleged incident. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had any intention to kill the police personnel while he was performing his public duty. The alleged incident occurred as Dholaram, Sub Inspector came in front of the vehicle while trying to stop it.
4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner has been arrested after four years of the alleged incident. He was also not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Hanuman Ram @ Hadmat S/o Durga Ram shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.30/2021 registered at Police Station Sanderao, District Pali, 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 so.
9. 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.
The court granted bail based on the absence of criminal antecedents and significant delay in arrest, emphasizing these factors in the context of the bail application.
Bail can be granted even for serious allegations if the injuries are grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation is complete.
The court granted bail to the accused-petitioner due to insufficient evidence linking him to the negligent driving incident, emphasizing the importance of trial duration in bail considerations.
The court granted bail based on the non-life-threatening nature of the injuries and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of trial duration in bail considerations.
a man is innocent until he is found guilty and bail is rule while jail is an exception.
The court affirmed that bail is the rule while incarceration is the exception, emphasizing judicial discretion based on the nature of accusations and evidence completeness.
The court granted bail based on the principle of parity, finding no distinguishable role of the petitioner compared to a co-accused already released on bail.
The court granted bail based on the nature of injuries and lack of motive, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
The court granted bail based on the nature of injuries being simple and the completion of the investigation, with no risk of influencing witnesses.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and granted bail based on the nature of injuries and absence of recovery from the accused.
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.