Order

18/12/2024 In SBCRLMB Nos.14836/2024 & 12088/2024 :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing applications under Section 483 of BNSS at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused- petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. The co-accused Deva Ram has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge as the case of the petitioners viz. Mohan Ram and Girdhari Ram has not significantly distinguishable factors so that disentitle them to release on bail.

6. Recently, in a landmark judgment dated 17.12.2024 rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ayub Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3382 has passed an order underscoring the principles of bail, wherein particularly this aspect has been considered whether pendency of any criminal case or criminal antecedent alone would be a guiding factor in adjudicating the plea of bail.

7. This Court is also guided by the principles of law propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court time and again more particularly the judgment rendered in Ayub Khan (supra) and the judgment dated 23.11.2011 rendered in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. CBI reported in AIR 2012 SC 830, judgment dated 31.01.1978 rendered in the case of Babu Singh Vs. The State of U.P. reported in (1978) 1 SCC 579 and the judgment dated 01.02.2021 rendered in the case of Union of India (UOI) Vs.

K.A. Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 SC 712

8. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

9. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners viz. Mohan Ram S/o Padma Ram and Girdhari Ram S/o Padma Ram shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

In SBCRLBC No. 60/2024 :

1. The instant bail cancellation application has been filed on behalf of the complainant/petitioner – Omprakash challenging the order dated 17.09.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur in Criminal Misc. bail No.352/2024, whereby the accused/respondent No.2–Deva Ram was enlarged on bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

2. It is the grief of the complainant/petitioner that looking to the circumstances of the case as well as gravity and nature of the allegation, the learned Sessions Judge was not supposed to grant bail to the accused/respondent No.2.

3. The powers under Section 483 of BNSS of the High Court and the Court of Sessions are concurrent in nature. There is no distinction in between them. It is a sole discretion of a Court of Session to entertain an application of bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS.

4. Whe