SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 456

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHD SHAHDIL @ SADIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 2023 / 2024



Advocates:
Ms. Deepika Soni, Ms. Anjali Gehlot, Ms. Neha Kalla, Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen

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.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14-A - Bail application - Appeals filed against rejection of bail by Special Judge - Allegations of abduction and infliction of injuries - Court found that injuries were not grievous and the appellants had been falsely implicated - The order rejecting bail was unsustainable. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial Custody - The appellants are in judicial custody, and the trial will take a long time to conclude, warranting consideration for bail. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of abducting the complainant under the suspicion of theft and inflicting injuries, with allegations of caste-based slurs. The injuries were not grievous, and the appellants claimed false implication.

Findings of Court:
The order rejecting bail was set aside based on the nature of the injuries and the length of time before trial.

Issues: Whether the rejection of bail was justified given the nature of the alleged injuries and the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of grievous injuries and the long duration before trial warranted the granting of bail.

Result: Appeals allowed; bail granted under specified conditions.

Order :

1. These appeals have been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.454/2024, registered at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 140(2), 115(2), 120(1), 127(2) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the orders dated 16.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur, whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants were rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the appellants acting upon their suspicion that the complainant had stolen their motorcycle, had abducted him and thereafter inflicted injuries upon him with fists.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that none of the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants upon the injured are grievous in nature. Learned counsel further submitted that the allegation levelled upon the appellants of using caste based slurs is far from truth since they had no knowledge that the injured belonged to the SC/ST category. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody; the investigation has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellants.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that none of the injuries caused to the complainant in the alleged incident which occurred on 27.11.2024 are grievous in nature.

6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

7. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 16.12.2024 & 06.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Udaipur are set aside. It is ordered that the accused- appellants (1) Ansar Khan @ Sonu S/o Shri Ajij Khan @ Hardil Ajij (2) Firoz Khan S/o Manjoor Khan and (3) Mohd Shahdil @ Sadil S/o Sh. Abdul Salim arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.454/2024, registered at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District Udaipur shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top