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
CRLMB / 2056 / 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 392 - Bail application - The accused-petitioner filed a fourth bail application after three previous applications were either dismissed or withdrawn - The court noted that only four out of twenty-four witnesses had been examined and that a co-accused had been granted bail - The court found it just and proper to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Bail - The principles governing the grant of bail include considering the nature of the allegations, the length of custody, and the progress of the trial - The court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the accused can participate in the trial without undue influence. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioner is charged with robbery under Section 392 IPC and has been in custody since July 14, 2024. The court previously dismissed three bail applications, and the complainant has now been examined. (Paras 1-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found that given the length of custody and the limited progress in witness examination, it was appropriate to grant bail to the accused-petitioner. (Paras 6, 7)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the allegations against the accused and the progress of the trial in relation to the bail application. (Paras 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the length of custody and the examination of witnesses were critical factors in deciding to grant bail, ensuring that the accused can defend themselves adequately. (Paras 6)
Result: Bail application allowed.
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application bearing No.9522/2024 ( Deepak Beniwal vs. State of Rajasthan ) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh bail application, after filing of the challan vide order dated 16.08.2024.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 to approach the learned trial Court vide order dated 10.01.2025.
5. The complainant has now been examined before the learned trial Court. Out of total twenty four (24) witnesses, only four (4) witnesses have been examined so far and the accused-petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2024.
6. Taking into consideration the over all facts and circumstances of the case, further, the nature of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, more particularly the fact that co-accused Ravi Rai has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 04.02.2025 and the accused-petitioner is in custody since 14.07.2024 and till date only four (4) witnesses have been examined out of twenty four (24) witnesses, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
7. This fourth bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
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
