Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI, J
ANKIT KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
Order :
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.415/2023, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu for the offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 143 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), (2)(v) of SC/ST Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11/2025, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.
2. Despite intimation to the victim/complainant of the case regarding hearing of the bail plea, no one is present on her behalf.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions ma
Bail can be granted based on parity with co-accused and the absence of evidence justifying continued detention, emphasizing the need for expeditious trial.
The principle of parity requires that if co-accused are granted bail, similar treatment should be extended to the appellant unless distinguishable circumstances exist.
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused and the anticipated length of the trial.
The court considered the similarity of allegations with other co-accused persons who had been granted bail and the expected lengthy trial duration as key factors in granting bail to the accused-appel....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the necessity of further incarceration, absence of reasonable grounds for the same, and the requirement for early culmination ....
The court determined that the appellant's circumstances warranted bail, as they were not worse than those of co-accused already granted bail.
The court established that in cases involving non-serious charges and prolonged trial durations, bail may be granted even under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
The court ruled that the lack of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge of the complainant's caste justified the granting of bail.
Prolonged custody without trial completion justifies granting bail, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.
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
