Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
NATHU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.924/2023 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 , 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the co- accused persons namely Vaktavar Nath and Sohan Singh (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.1975/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2025. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the case of present appellant is not worse than that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody; challan has already been filed against the p
The court determined that the appellant's circumstances warranted bail, as they were not worse than those of co-accused already granted bail.
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 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.
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
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 granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused and the absence of evidence justifying continued detention, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial.
The court determined that the appellant's case was not distinguishable from co-accused granted bail, leading to the conclusion that bail should be granted without evidence of witness tampering or fli....
Subsequent bail applications require a change in circumstances; repeated applications without such change are not entertained.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly when similar cases have resulted in bail being granted.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
