Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
Mohammad Ishak – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co- accused persons namely Vijaypal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14607/2024) & Kuldeep Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14608/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of appellants is not distinguishable from that of the a
The court ruled that lack of evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements justified granting bail to the appellants despite serious charges.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
The court ruled that the nature of injuries and completion of investigation are critical factors in bail decisions, emphasizing that serious allegations do not automatically warrant denial of bail.
Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.
The court ruled that the rejection of bail was unsustainable due to lack of evidence against the appellant and precedence set by the co-accused's bail grant.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
Bail may be granted when petitioners are not specifically named in the FIR and have no assigned role in the alleged crime, highlighting the discretionary nature of bail.
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
