Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Urmila – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
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.600/2024 registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 108 & 3(5) of BNS; Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh 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 co-accused person namely Netram (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.2068/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record indicating that the appellant had mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the appellant is in custody and trial of the case will take suffic
Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court established that lack of specific allegations in a suicide note can be a valid ground for granting bail under the SC/ST Act.
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 allowed bail for the appellant, finding no material distinction from a co-accused already granted bail and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing.
The court ruled that the rejection of bail was unsustainable due to lack of evidence against the appellant and precedence set by the co-accused's bail grant.
The court established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.
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.
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
