Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
Deepak Beniwal S/o Dileep Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
Order :
1. The accused-petitioner has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.252/2024 registered with the Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 392 IPC .
2. Heard.
3. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record.
4. The first bail application bearing No.9522/2024 ( Deepak Beniwal vs. State of Rajasthan ) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh bail application, after filing of the challan vide order dated 16.08.2024. Further, the second bail application bearing No.11231/2024 ( Deepak Beniwal vs. State of Rajasthan ) filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024 along with connected bail application, looking to the fact that the complainant was not examined by the learned trial Court by that time and the Court was of the view that the complainant be examined without there being any fear or influence by the accused party, who were in custody at that time and the third bail application bearing No.16529/2024 ( Deepak Beniwal vs. State of Rajasthan ) was also dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
The court may grant bail considering the length of custody, nature of allegations, and trial progress, ensuring fair trial rights.
Bail should be granted when the accused has been in custody for a significant period without substantial evidence against them.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
Prolonged incarceration and lack of witness examination can justify bail under the NDPS Act, overriding statutory restrictions.
The absence of eyewitnesses and lack of evidence against the accused justified the grant of bail, emphasizing the principle of preventing unnecessary detention without risk of influencing witnesses.
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 principle of parity in bail applications mandates that similarly situated accused persons should be treated equally, particularly when the prosecution fails to distinguish their cases.
The court granted bail to petitioners based on similar circumstances to co-accused previously granted bail, emphasizing no opinion on case merits.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental, and indefinite detention without trial is impermissible, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused, provided there is no risk of the accused influencing witnesses or fleeing justice.
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
