HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
AMAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 15720 / 2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420 and 409 - Bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS for offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust - Petitioner collected money from rural women under false pretenses but did not deposit it - Court finds no recovery due from petitioner and offences are triable by a Magistrate. (Paras 1, 2, 3)
(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail - The court considers the nature of the offences, the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody, and the length of time required for trial - The court decides to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.215/2022 for offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC, related to collecting money from women for loans but failing to deposit it. The petitioner is in judicial custody and no recovery is due from him.
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the offences are triable by a Magistrate and no recovery is due from the petitioner, thus granting bail.
Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since no recovery is due from the petitioner and the offences are triable by a Magistrate, bail should be granted without prejudice to the merits of the case.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.215/2022 registered at Police Station Shahpura (Bhilwara), Dist. Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the petitioner who was working in Bharat Finance Inclusion Limited, collected cash from the women of rural areas for depositing against ongoing loans and also collected money from them on the false pretext of getting new loans sanctioned in their favour but did not deposit the money so collected in the bank.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from the petitioner; the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a court of Magistrate and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he is not a position to refute the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a court of Magistrate.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that no recovery is due to be made from the petitioner; the offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by a Court of Magistrate. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Aman S/o Mohd. Salim arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.215/2022 registered at Police Station Shahpura (Bhilwara), Dist. Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
Bail granted as no recovery is due from the petitioner and offences are triable by a Magistrate.
The court emphasized that when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioners, considering the lengthy trial duration.
The court held that bail may be granted when the offence is triable by a Magistrate, and prolonged detention without a trial serves no purpose.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
The court granted bail based on the completion of the investigation and the civil nature of the allegations, emphasizing that the charges are triable by a Magistrate.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
The court granted bail based on the non-life-threatening nature of the injuries and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of trial duration in bail considerations.
The court granted bail based on the nature of injuries being simple and the completion of the investigation, with no risk of influencing witnesses.
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.