HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
MOHD SHAHDIL @ SADIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 2023 / 2024
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.
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 ruled that the lack of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge of the complainant's caste justified the granting of bail.
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 the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly considering the severity of injuries and the duration of custody.
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 should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
Bail can be granted in the absence of specific allegations against accused, especially when prolonged detention is involved.
The court considered the similarity of allegations with other co-accused persons who had been granted bail and the expected lengthy trial duration as key factors in granting bail to the accused-appel....
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances, and the arguments presented.
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.