Limitation For Executing Partition Decree Not Suspended Till Engrossment; Right To Seek Engrossment Subsists During 12-Year Execution Period: Allahabad HC Unilateral Revocation Of Registered Gift Deed Through Sub-Registrar Is Void, Donor Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mediation Cannot Be Forced Upon Unwilling Party In Civil Suits; Consent Of Both Sides Essential: Bombay High Court Unmarried Daughter Not Entitled To Freedom Fighter Pension If Gainfully Employed At Time Of Father's Death: Calcutta High Court Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Denied For Lack Of Formal Divorce From First Marriage: Delhi High Court ONGC Cannot Demand Security From Award Holder After Giving ‘No Objection’ To Withdrawal Of Deposited Amount: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sedative Drugs Like Tramadol Impact Mental Fitness Of Declarant; Bombay High Court Acquits Man Relying On Doubtful Dying Declarations Postal Tracking Report Showing 'Refusal' Not Conclusive Proof Of Service If Denied On Oath: Delhi High Court Encroachments Near Military Installations Pose National Security Threat; Remove Illegal Constructions Within Three Months: Rajasthan High Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs State To Decide On Legality Of Charging Fees For Downloading FIRs From 'SAANJH' Portal Wife’s Educational Qualifications No Bar To Seeking Maintenance If Actual Employment Is Not Proven: Orissa High Court Mere Telephonic Contact Without Substance Of Conversation Cannot Establish Criminal Conspiracy: Madhya Pradesh High Court Serious Allegations Like HIV/AIDS Imputations Require Corroboration, Cannot Rest Solely On Unsubstantiated Testimony: Karnataka High Court Family Court Cannot Refuse Mutual Consent Divorce Merely Because Parties Are Living Separately 'Without Valid Reason': Kerala High Court Collective Attempts By Advocates To Overbear Presiding Officer Not Protected Professional Conduct: Madras High Court Dismisses Quash Petitions No Legal Evidence Required To Forward A Person To Trial? Rajasthan HC Slams Police For Implicating Accused In NDPS Case Solely On Co-Accused's Statement Accused Must Be Physically Present In Court To Furnish Bonds Under Section 91 BNSS: Punjab & Haryana High 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