Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 200 (RAJ)

Khet Singh v. State

2021-01-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in relation to F.I.R. No. 221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer, for the offences under Sections 458, 323, 354, 504 and 509/34 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. On perusal of the impugned order and the FIR, it is apparent that the role attributed to the present petitioners Khet Singh and Kalyan Singh and the co-accused Swaroop Singh is almost identical. Though as per the FIR, the petitioner Kalyan Singh was allegedly armed with a knife but it is apparent from the injury reports of the injured Om Prakash and Thakara Ram that no injury whatsoever was caused to anyone by a sharp weapon. The bail application of the co-accused Swaroop Singh was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer by order dated 05.09.2020 whereupon, he approached this Court by filing Bail Application No.9870/2020, which was accepted vide order dated 07.10.2020. 4. The application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands rejected by the very same Presiding Officer vide order dated 23.12.2020 wherein, reference is given to the order rejecting bail of co-accused Swaroop Singh dated 05.09.2020. In the entire text of the order, the learned Presiding Officer did not refer to the order passed by this Court on the bail application of Swaroop Singh. 5. As per Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Sessions Court as well as the High Court while considering the bail application/s of arrested accused have concurrent jurisdiction. Needless to say that while considering bail applications of similarly situated accused persons, parity has to be maintained and it should be ensured that unless any distinguishable feature or any special circumstance is in existence, the bail of a subsequently arrested accused on same footing should not be dismissed when other/s with similar allegation/s have been extended indulgence of bail. 6. Furthermore, for maintaining judicial discipline it is essential that in cases where this Court has decided bail application/s of some accused in a particular case and the bail application of the co-accused comes up before the Sessions Court/Additional Sessions Court concerned, this Court's order/s must be referred to and duly regarded in the order/s deciding such bail application/s. 7. 6. Furthermore, for maintaining judicial discipline it is essential that in cases where this Court has decided bail application/s of some accused in a particular case and the bail application of the co-accused comes up before the Sessions Court/Additional Sessions Court concerned, this Court's order/s must be referred to and duly regarded in the order/s deciding such bail application/s. 7. In the present case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Barmer, while rejecting the bail application of the petitioners by order dated 23.12.2020, referred to his own order dated 05.09.2020 whereby, the bail application of Swaroop Singh was rejected. However, the order dated 07.10.2020 passed by this Court whereby, Swaroop Singh whose case stands on the same footing as the petitioners, was admitted to bail was conveniently omitted. This indicates the gross disregard of this Court's order by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Barmer. 8. The approach of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Barmer in denying bail to the petitioners even though similarly situated accused has been granted bail in the very same case is deprecated as such an approach not only tantamounts to a total disregard of this Court's order but also increases this Court's dockets flooding it with unwarranted bail applications and also prolongs the custody of the accused without any justification. It is henceforth expected from all the Subordinate Courts in the State of Rajasthan that where similarly situated co-accused has been granted bail by this Court and the bail application of other accused comes up for consideration, this Court's order/s shall not only be referred to while deciding such bail application/s but shall be followed unless exceptional/distinguishable features exist. 9. With the above observations, the instant bail application deserves to be and is hereby accepted. 10. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Khet Singh S/o. Lal Singh and Kalyan Singh S/o. Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.221/2020, Police Station Kotwali, District Barmer shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.