Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J
SUNIL KUMAR @ BABLU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.
The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.28/2021 registered at Police Station Goluwala, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 449, 364, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars for more than three years and no specific averment has been made against the present petitioner. Further, counsel submits that co-accused Rajat @ Bablu has been enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court only on the ground of delay of trial.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024) in which while granting bail it has been observed as under:
“ 9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co- accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude
Prolonged custody without trial completion and lack of specific allegations justify granting bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Prolonged custody without trial can unjustly punish an accused, warranting bail under the presumption of innocence.
Prolonged incarceration without trial can lead to unjust punishment; bail may be granted based on the duration of custody and trial delays.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial proceedings can be grounds for granting bail, and non-appearance of police officials before the trial court, citing the pandemic as a reason, cannot be a re....
Prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can justify bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Bail – Fifth bail application filed solely on the ground of custody period of accused and keeping in view fact that trial against him has not been completed till date, deserves to be accepted.
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 right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an unreasonable period.
Prolonged judicial custody and lack of prosecution witness examination justify granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Prolonged incarceration can justify bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.
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
