Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
PANCHARAM VISHNOI @ PREM SIYAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.747/2022 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 419 , 420 and 120B IPC and Sections 3, 4, 6 and 6(a) of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Act, 1992 and Sections 3, 6, 9 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfairmeans) Amendment Act, 2022.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused persons namely Peera Ram and Suresh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the role assigned to the present petitioner in commission of the alleged offences is exactly similar to and not at all distinguishable from that of above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.05.2024 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 opposed the bail application. How
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 when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
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 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.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused, provided there is no risk of the accused influencing witnesses or fleeing justice.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
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
