The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that bail can be granted under Section 483 BNSS, considering parity with co-accused and the existence of compromise between parties, even where serious sections like 364A IPC are invoked, provided the complainant has no objection. This judgment upholds earlier bail precedent and provides practical guidance for subordinate courts in Rajasthan.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLMB/6230/2025 of KAMAL SINGH S/O SHRI KAILASHCHAND Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN |
| CNR | RJHC020409932025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-05-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law / Bail |
| Questions of Law | Whether bail can be granted under Section 483 BNSS for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, and 364A IPC based on compromise and parity with co-accused. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, considering the compromise arrived at between parties and parity with a co-accused already enlarged on bail, petitioners may be granted bail—even where serious offences like those under Sections 364A IPC are alleged—provided the complainant has no objection and trial would take considerable time. No opinion was expressed on merits. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Co-accused Jitendra had previously been granted bail by the same court on 08.10.2025. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Parity with co-accused, existence of compromise, complainant’s non-objection, protracted trial as relevant factors under Section 483 BNSS. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners are accused in a common FIR under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, and 364A IPC. Petitioners have multiple previous cases against them. However, a compromise was entered with the complainant, who has no objection to bail. The co-accused is already on bail. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | May be considered persuasive by other High Courts and trial courts outside Rajasthan |
| Follows | Follows prior bail order for co-accused Jitendra (08.10.2025, same court) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that bail may be granted for serious offences including under Section 364A IPC, when a compromise is present and the complainant raises no objection.
- Parity with a co-accused who has been granted bail is a relevant consideration.
- The Court may grant bail notwithstanding multiple previous cases against the petitioner if the specific offence at hand is compromised.
- Cites protracted trial and compromise as effective grounds for bail under Section 483 BNSS.
- Lawyers may use this ruling to support bail applications when compromise letters are on record and the complainant does not object.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined whether, on the facts, bail could be granted given the seriousness of the allegations (Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, 364A IPC) and the presence of a compromise.
- Considered arguments relating to parity (co-accused Jitendra having been granted bail earlier).
- Noted the complainant’s explicit non-objection to the grant of bail.
- Factored in that trial is likely to be prolonged, so continued incarceration would serve no useful purpose.
- Held, without commenting on the merits, that these collectively justified grant of bail under Section 483 BNSS.
- Bail was thus granted on personal bond and surety, with appearance conditions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Petitioners have been falsely implicated.
- Parity with co-accused Jitendra, who was recently granted bail.
- Petitioners have entered into a compromise with the complainant.
- Trial will take considerable time; continued custody serves no purpose.
Complainant
- Compromise has been arrived at.
- No objection to the petitioners being released on bail.
State / Public Prosecutor
- Vehemently opposed the bail applications.
Factual Background
Petitioners Kamal Singh and Ravi @ Balli were accused in FIR No. 92/2024 at Police Station Balghat, District Gangapur City for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 365, and 364A IPC. Both were in custody. Petitioners have past criminal antecedents. A compromise was reached with the complainant after registration of the case. The complainant raised no objection to bail.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court considered bail application under Section 483 of BNSS.
- Relevant substantive offences: Sections 143 (unlawful assembly), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 341 (wrongful restraint), 365 (kidnapping/abduction), and 364A (kidnapping for ransom) IPC.
- No additional interpretation of the statutory provisions was carried out in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions indicated in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Builds on existing precedent for bail on compromise and parity.