Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, BENCH AT JAIPUR
MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN, J
Sagarmal, Son Of Teja Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Judgment :
(SAMEER JAIN, J.)
1. The instant criminal appeals are filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”) on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in relation to FIR No.168/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offence under Sections 143, 302, 201 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v)(VA) of the Act of 1989).
2. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that as per the records, it can be noted that the alleged incident occurred on 27th June, 2023 and an FIR against the was lodged belatedly on 30th June, 2023 by brother of the deceased, stating that a group of persons who were employees of sand smugglers, have attacked and caused brutal injuries upon the deceased.
3. Learned counsel had further submitted that it is revealed from the medical report that as many as 14 injuries were sustained by the deceased, out of which, 11 were simple in nature and one was fatal/grievous/life threatening in nature. It is further averred that at present, qua certain alleged persons, proceedings under the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are initiated and qua some of the ac
The court emphasized that the severity of the crime and the criminal history of the appellants outweighed their arguments for bail, highlighting the need to protect the victim's family's rights.
Bail applications under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act require careful consideration of the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence of involvement.
Bail is the rule, and incarceration should be the exception, requiring careful consideration of the nature of the crime and potential for witness tampering.
The court emphasized the necessity of timely FIR registration and proper representation for marginalized communities, deferring final adjudication to ensure compliance with legal standards.
The court established that bail can be granted based on the absence of criminal history, the nature of the allegations, and the duration of custody, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court denied bail due to the serious nature of the offense and the risk of tampering with evidence, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
The court emphasized that prolonged detention without substantial evidence serves no purpose, warranting bail for the accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion in granting bail, considering the gravity of the offense, presence of eyewitnesses, and the need for expeditious trial proce....
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegation, the appellant's custody, and the absence of criminal antecedents.
The seriousness of the offence, the presence of supporting witnesses, and the vulnerability of the complainant and other witnesses influenced the decision to deny bail to the appellant.
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
