Exercising judicial discretion as well as invoking the sense for exercising judicial discretion lies with the court; Rejects bail: Rajasthan High court
Exercising judicial discretion as well as invoking the sense for exercising judicial discretion lies with the court; Rejects bail: Rajasthan High court
The High Court of Rajasthan in the judgement given on 10th June 2022 by the Honorable Judge Farjand Ali in the case of Bhim Saini v. State of Rajasthan S.B Criminal miscellaneous bail application no. 4091/2022 dismissed the bail application of the petitioner being accused of honor and observed that the investigating agency had left some facts unattended.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The facts of the case are such that the FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant who is the father of the deceased. The complainant stated that he is resident of Bundi and for the last one and a half years his son has been living in Kota. The dead body of his son was observed “Barda of Jakhmund”. The petitioner were apprehended were sent to judicial custody after investigation. The present bail application was preferred by accused petitioners who are in judicial custody for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B and 362 of the penal code,1860. Council for the state relied on autopsy report, the last location of the deceased in the company of accused persons, death threats reported by the deceased on numerous occasions, CCTV footage as well as call details to oppose the bail application.
The court observed that the substratum of the present case predominantly based upon circumstantial evidence, as no direct evidence or eye-witness is at standby for the same. More so, this court is very aware of the facts that the present case of the accused petitioners is to be dealt to the extent of adjudication on the issue of bail only. Thus, the appreciation and meticulous evaluation of the facts and circumstances are not ordinarily warranted.
The exercising of judicial discretion as well as invoking the sense for exercising judicial discretion lies with the court. In order to reach plausible conclusion, over an issue placed before it, the character of such relevant facts and circumstances tends to display two probable sides of an issue; there the judicial discretion recognizes that side of an issue which is closer and pregnant with sound legal traits based upon the parameters of rule of law. Thus, there is a fine distinction in between final hearing on merits and hearing a bail plea under Section 439 CrPC. The court further noted that the there is no straight jacket formula for grant and dismissal of a bail but guiding by the judicial pronouncements on the issue of bail, it is clear that every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstance attached to it.
JUDGEMENT:
The court observed that after perusing the charge-sheet, the chain of events tentatively showing a well-designed conspiracy and the complicity of every accused person is very much available on record.
The court thus held that the present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused petitioners at this stage. Resultantly, both the bail applications filed by the accused are hereby dismissed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY CHANDANA SHEKAR