Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Asif - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
CRLAS / 1731 / 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2025
(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v)(va) - Bail application - Appeals filed against rejection of bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. - The injuries inflicted were simple and grievous but not on vital parts or dangerous to life - Judicial custody and completion of investigation considered. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court noted that the seriousness of allegations does not automatically preclude bail, especially when injuries are not life-threatening and investigation is complete. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were in custody for alleged offences under various sections of the BNS and SC/ST Act, following an incident on 12.09.2024, where injuries were inflicted on two individuals, one grievous and the other simple. The appellants argued for bail citing the nature of injuries and the lengthy trial process.
Findings of Court:
The court found merit in the bail application, emphasizing that the injuries were not life-threatening and the investigation was complete, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Issues: The main issues were the nature of injuries inflicted and whether the seriousness of allegations warranted denial of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of injuries and the completion of the investigation were significant factors in deciding bail, indicating that serious allegations alone do not justify denial of bail.
Result: Appeals allowed; bail granted.
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
These appeals have been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.460/2024, registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 331(6), 109(1), 110, 115(2), 127(2), 324(6), 190, 191(2) and 191(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the orders dated 13.11.2024, 19.10.2024, 16.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent criminal Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the alleged incident, which occurred on 12.09.2024, the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants upon the injured Jugal Kishore are simple in nature whereas, the injuries allegedly inflicted upon the injured Madan Lal are though grievous in nature but the same are neither on the vital body part of the injured nor are dangerous to life.
4. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody; the blunt weapon (lathis) allegedly used in commission of the crime have already recovered by the investigating agency; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellants.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications. Learned counsel submitted that in the alleged incident, which occurred on 12.09.2024, the appellants have mercilessly beaten the injured persons and have caused more than 15 injuries to each of the injured persons. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present appellants, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the facts that the injuries allegedly inflicted by the appellants upon the injured are neither on the vital body parts of the injured persons nor the same are dangerous to life. They were also not in a position to refute the fact that the investigation against the appellants has already been completed.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail.
7. Consequently, these instant appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.11.2024, 19.10.2024, 16.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants(1) Pankaj Saini S/o Jai Prakash, (2) Asif S/o Mustak Khan, (3) Rajaram @ Raju Silu S/o Narayan Ram, (4) Pradeep Kumar S/o Ramprakash, (5) Salman S/o Peeru Khan, (6) Vishal S/o Krishanlal and (7) Vijay S/o Bhadarram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.460/2024, registered at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes 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.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of appeals. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced
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 granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court ruled that lack of evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements justified granting bail to the appellants despite serious charges.
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 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.
Court ruled that bail should be granted when allegations are less severe compared to co-accused, highlighting equal treatment and length of custody as justifications.
Bail can be granted in the absence of specific allegations against accused, especially when prolonged detention is involved.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the appellants deserving bail based on the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record.
Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
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
