Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Vishal S/o Shri Mahaveer – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J.
1. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.156/2022 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 143, 302 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the FIR has been registered after a delay of 06 hours as an afterthought. Additionally, it is contended that as per the seizure memo one country made pistol having a bore of 9 mm was alleged to be seized at the instance of the petitioner but as per the armour report the bore of the pistol was found 7.65 mm thereby casting doubts on the prosecution story.
He further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since01.07.2022 and after the submission of the charge-sheet only 18 witnesses out of 28 witnesses have been examined so far, which violates constitutional rights of the petitioner about the speedy trial due to prolonged incarceration.
He again submits that although the bail of the co-accused-Yogendra Sin
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 presumption of innocence and the right to a speedy trial necessitate the grant of bail when trial delays are unreasonable.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without significant progress in prosecution can justify bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of timely trials.
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 severity of the charge of murder and the legal principles for granting bail in such cases were central to the court's decision.
Long incarceration does not warrant bail in serious offences like murder when credible evidence and specific allegations against the accused exist.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution takes precedence over statutory restrictions on bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an unreasonable period.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
Gravity alone cannot be a decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by court while exercising its discretion.
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
