Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SAJJAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner arrested for offences (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel argues for bail (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. public prosecutor opposes bail (Para 5) |
| 4. court considers submissions (Para 6) |
| 5. bail granted with conditions (Para 7) |
| 6. clarification on findings (Para 8) |
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
1. 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.116/2024 registered at Police Station Savina, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 447 , 468 , 420 , 406 & 120- B of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused Suresh has already been enlarged on bail by the competent Criminal Court. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, a plot No. 132 situated in Roop Rajat Nagar Yojana, Udaipur was got registered by the petitioner and co-accused persons in the name of another co-accused Jitendra on the basis of fabricated and false power of attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the other co- accused persons namely Dinesh Kumar
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
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.
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.
Bail may be granted when petitioners are not specifically named in the FIR and have no assigned role in the alleged crime, highlighting the discretionary nature of bail.
The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
Bail may be granted if the accused is in judicial custody, the trial will take a long time, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
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
