Rajasthan High Court allows bail under Section 483 BNSS in a case involving serious IPC offences on the basis of compromise, despite objections from Public Prosecutor; affirms flexible judicial discretion and sets a binding precedent for subordinate courts in similar factual situations.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLMB/13593/2025 of RAVI @ BALLI SON OF SHRI MAHESH CHAND Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN |
| CNR | RJHC020906342025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR |
| Court | High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench |
| Bench | Single Bench: PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Type of Law | Criminal law—Bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail may be granted under Section 483 BNSS for serious IPC offences when parties reach a compromise and complainant raises no objection. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Enlargement of co-accused Jitendra on bail by the same Court on 08-10-2025 was cited. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering bail where compromise is reached, even in cases involving serious offences |
| Follows | Bail enlarged to co-accused Jitendra by the same High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The existence of a compromise and no objection from complainant may support grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS, even in serious IPC offences like 364A.
- Courts may be persuaded to grant bail despite Public Prosecutor’s opposition where settlement is established and co-accused have already been released.
- This decision can be cited by defense counsel in Rajasthan to support bail pleas in cases involving settlement during pendency.
- The judgment illustrates the High Court’s willingness to exercise discretion in favor of bail on pragmatic grounds of settlement and anticipated trial delay.
- No commentary was made on merits of the case, reaffirming that grant of bail does not prejudice trial outcome.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered submissions from petitioners regarding false implication, prior bail to co-accused, and compromise between parties.
- The complainant’s statement of no objection to bail was given significant weight.
- The Public Prosecutor’s opposition was noted, but not considered determinative.
- The key factor was the existence of compromise and the likely delay in trial, making further incarceration unnecessary.
- The bail was granted expressly without recording any finding on guilt or innocence, thus maintaining neutrality towards the merits of the case.
- The legal reasoning drew practical parity with earlier bail to co-accused and did not rely on or overrule Supreme Court precedents, focusing primarily on discretionary power under Section 483 BNSS.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners were falsely implicated.
- Prior criminal cases were acknowledged.
- Cited compromise as ground for bail.
- Invoked parity with co-accused who had already been granted bail.
- Argued protracted trial would serve no purpose.
Complainant
- Informed the Court of compromise between parties.
- Expressly stated no objection to grant of bail to petitioners.
State/Public Prosecutor
- Vehemently opposed applications for bail.
Factual Background
Petitioners were accused in FIR No. 92/2024 registered at Police Station Balghat, District Gangapur City, under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, and 364A of the IPC. Petitioners Kamal Singh and Ravi @ Balli had previously been involved in a number of criminal cases. During pendency, the parties entered into a compromise. The complainant had no objection to the grant of bail. Co-accused Jitendra had already been granted bail by the High Court earlier in the same case. The Public Prosecutor nevertheless opposed the present bail pleas.
Statutory Analysis
The Court exercised its discretion under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the grant of bail. No detailed statutory interpretation was undertaken; the provision was applied to the facts, with emphasis on the aspect of compromise and complainant’s no objection.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations are set out in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Applies settled principles for grant of bail, particularly where a compromise is reached and the complainant does not object.