Right to Property Remains a Constitutional Right – Even Drug Law Must Respect Due Process: Telangana High Court Upholds Freezing Order Under NDPS Act Brutality Alone Cannot Justify Death Sentence Without Considering Reformative Possibility: Supreme Court Commutes Capital Punishment in Familicide Case Unilateral Right to Opt Out of Arbitration Cannot Invalidate Entire Clause: Bombay High Court Upholds Arbitration Despite SARFAESI Provisions Limited Jurisdiction Doesn’t Bar Inquiry into Adoption and Title in Eviction Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Cultivating Tenants’ Eviction States Must Comply with Reimbursement Orders or Face Contempt: Supreme Court Warns on Healthcare Dues of Retired Judges Not the Requirement of Law That Applicant Should Sit Idle Till His Premises Are Not Released: Supreme Court Upholds Eviction of Tenant from Cinema Hall After 63 Years Belated Representations Cannot Revive Stale Claims: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitation under Administrative Tribunals Act When the Police Investigation Is Callous, Justice Demands a Neutral Hand: Supreme Court Upholds CBI Probe into Suspicious Death of Real Estate Tycoon Linked to MP Vague Charges, Denial of Cross-Examination—How Can There Be a Fair Trial? Supreme Court Slams Bihar Police for Unlawful Dismissal of Constable Justice Delayed Cannot Become Persecution Prolonged: Supreme Court Bars Fresh Disciplinary Action Against Police Officer 40 Years After 1984 Delhi Riots Membership in Waqf Board Ends with Bar Council Tenure: Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Section 14 Wakf Act to Muslim Advocates Set-Off Under Section 428 CrPC Applies Only to Custody in the Same Case in Which Conviction Is Recorded: Supreme Court Refers Conflicting Precedents for Authoritative Interpretation Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Statutory Non-Compliance Cannot Be Cured by Procedural Amendment: Allahabad High Court Invalidates Post-Limitation Impleadment in Election Petition Gross Dereliction of Duty That Traverses Beyond Negligence Into the Arena of Palpable Fraud: Calcutta High Court Fixes Bank’s Liability for Premature FD Encashment Even a Trespasser in Settled Possession Cannot Be Dispossessed Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes in Family Property Dispute Taxation Law | Issuance of Notices Without Application of Mind Violates Fundamental Principles: PH High Court Quashes Notices A Soldier Cannot Be Denied Disability Pension Just Because It Was Below 20%: Supreme Court Grants Full Benefits to Army Veteran Invalided Out for Seizure Disorder State Cannot Let Bureaucratic Delay Decide a Judge’s Seniority: Supreme Court Grants Retrospective Seniority to Civil Judges Selected in 2003 Prosecution Cannot Hijack Court’s Power to Frame Charges Under Section 216 CrPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Alteration of Charges in Double Murder Trial “Next Time We Will Take Suo Motu Action”: Supreme Court Warns Rahul Gandhi Over Remarks On Savarkar

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 News