HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
ANIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 435 / 2025
(A) Bail Application - Section 483 BNSS 2023 - Petitioners arrested in connection with FIR No.530/2024 for various offences - Petitioner No.2, a co-passenger, claimed to be falsely implicated - Injuries to the victim, though grievous, were not life-threatening - Court inclined to grant bail considering the duration of judicial custody and lack of motive. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized that findings made are solely for the purpose of the bail application and should not influence the trial court's judgment. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested for offences related to an incident on 08.12.2024, where the victim Dinesh sustained grievous injuries, but not on vital parts of the body.
Findings of Court:
The court granted bail to petitioner No.2, Vikas @ Kalu, while allowing petitioner No.1 to file a fresh bail application post-challan filing.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the injuries and the implications of the petitioners' involvement in the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the severity of injuries and the lack of motive for the alleged crime warranted the granting of bail, emphasizing the need for judicial discretion in such matters.
Result: Bail application partly allowed.
ORDER :
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press the instant bail application qua the petitioner No.1 Anil Kumar S/o Rohtash
2. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS 2023 has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.530/2024 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 109(1), 117(2), 126(2), 115(2), BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.2 has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that in the alleged incident which occurred on 08.12.2024, the injuries succumbed by the injured Dinesh are though grievous in nature but not on his vital body parts and neither dangerous to life. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner No.2 was merely a co-passenger in the camper vehicle which hit the injured Dinesh and he has no motive to commit the alleged crime.
4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner No.2 is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.
5. Per contra, learned GA cum AAG and learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the injuries allegedly suffered by the injured Dinesh are though grievous in nature but not dangerous to life and neither on his vital body parts.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 No.2 Vikas @ Kalu on bail.
8. It is directed that the petitioner No.1 Anil Kumar S/o Rohtash shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after filing of the challan, as prayed.
9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS 2023 is partly allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioner No.2 Vikas @ Kalu S/o Sultan Ram shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.530/2024 registered at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, 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.
10. 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 nature of injuries and lack of motive, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
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.
Bail granted based on the nature of injuries and lengthy trial process, emphasizing that injuries are grievous but not life-threatening.
The court grants bail considering the nature of injuries and the completion of investigation, emphasizing that observations are not to influence the trial court.
Bail can be granted even for serious allegations if the injuries are grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation is complete.
The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and granted bail based on the nature of injuries and absence of recovery from the accused.
Bail may be granted when injuries are grievous but not life-threatening, investigation is concluded, and no risk of influencing witnesses is present.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
The court granted bail due to insufficient specific allegations against the petitioner and lack of risk of tampering with evidence.
Bail can be granted when allegations involve simple injuries, no criminal history exists, and trial duration is expected to be lengthy.
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.