Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Granting Bail on Parity Reflects Judicial Consistency," Says Rajasthan High Court in Cheating Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Accused Sukhdev Singh and Nirmal Singh Bhangu granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., following the release of co-accused on similar charges.

The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to Sukhdev Singh and Nirmal Singh Bhangu, accused in a high-profile cheating and conspiracy case under Sections 420, 406, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The decision, delivered by Justice Farjand Ali, emphasized the principles of bail jurisprudence and the necessity of maintaining judicial consistency by granting bail on grounds of parity with previously released co-accused.

The case involves Sukhdev Singh and Nirmal Singh Bhangu, who were accused of cheating (Section 420 IPC), criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), and criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC) in FIR Number 249/2018 at Police Station Jalupura, District Jaipur.

Justice Farjand Ali elaborated on the bail jurisprudence applicable to offences triable by a Court of Magistrate. The court reiterated that: “It is run of the mill for High Courts as well as Hon’ble the Apex Court to grant bail in cases concerning offences that are triable by Magistrate.”

The court cited the established legal principle that bail should generally be granted in cases where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that the accused should be allowed to attend trial from home unless there are compelling reasons to keep them detained.

A significant factor in the court's decision was the principle of parity. The court noted that co-accused Subrato Bhattacharya and Gurmeet Singh had already been granted bail on April 20, 2022. The court stated: “The case of the petitioners is not distinguishable with that of the case of the co-accused Subrato Bhattacharya who has already been enlarged on bail.”

Justice Ali emphasized that the accused should not be detained during the lengthy trial process for offences triable by a Magistrate. He quoted previous judgments to underline that prolonged pre-trial detention equates to an unjustified extension of sentence without conviction: “The only thing which a court of law is to ascertain while entertaining a bail plea is whether the accused should be allowed to come to the court to attend the judicial proceeding from his home and he may be allowed to remain with his family and within the society.”

The High Court’s decision to grant bail to Sukhdev Singh and Nirmal Singh Bhangu underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding the principles of bail jurisprudence and judicial consistency. By granting bail on grounds of parity, the court has reinforced the legal framework that governs the treatment of accused individuals in cases of non-bailable offences triable by a Magistrate. This judgment is expected to influence future cases, emphasizing the importance of maintaining consistent judicial standards and the presumption of innocence.

Date of Decision: 03/05/2024

SUKHDEV SINGH  VS   STATE OF RAJASTHAN     

Latest Legal News