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.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.273/2024, sought bail on the grounds that co-accused had been granted bail and that the trial would take a long time - The court noted that the injuries inflicted were grievous but not dangerous to life - The court found no apprehension of the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing - Bail granted. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial Custody - The court emphasized that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial will take sufficiently long time, warranting the grant of bail. (Paras 3, 6)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested for serious offences under various sections of BNS related to an incident resulting in grievous injuries to the victim, Aatma Ram, but not life-threatening. Co-accused had been granted bail. (Paras 1, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the case of the petitioner was not distinguishable from that of co-accused who were granted bail, and there was no risk of influencing witnesses. (Paras 6, 7)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner should be granted bail considering the nature of the injuries and the status of co-accused. (Paras 3, 6)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the seriousness of allegations does not preclude bail if the petitioner is in judicial custody, the trial will take time, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses. (Paras 6, 7)

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.273/2024 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anupgarh, for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 324(5), 109(1), 189(2) and 110 of BNS.

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 co-accused persons namely Neeraj Kumar, Tribhuvan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16036/2024); and Mangi @ Vishal, Suryapal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15104/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the challan against him has already been filed before the competent criminal Court and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by of this Court. The order dated 24.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.273/2024 registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anupgarh, for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 74, 324(5), 189(2) and 110 of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the injury report of the injured-Aatma Ram, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the prosecution, in the alleged incident which occurred on 24.09.2024, the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners and the co- accused persons upon the injured-Aatma Ram, are not on his vital body part and the same are though grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. Learned counsel further submitted that all the other injured persons have received only simple injuries at the hands of the present petitioners.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; investigation against them has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to seriousness of allegations against the petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners upon the injured- Aatma Ram are though grievous in nature but the same are not dangerous to life.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

Consequently, these bail applications under Section483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Neeraj Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, (2) Tribhuvan S/o Ramprakash, (3) Mangi @

Click Here to Read the rest of this document