Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Bail GrantedYudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2024:RJ-JD:44012
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 2276/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 24 October 2024
- Bench
- Justice Arun Monga
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Article 21
Final Outcome
Allowed: the father gets 15 days' interim bail on bonds and sureties to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of District Jail, Sirohi, and stays within Sirohi's territorial jurisdiction. Surrender is due at the period's end, counted from release, reporting to the Superintendent of District Jail by 5:00 PM (paras 10-13).
Key holdings
- Article 21 protects an accused or undertrial too and includes the dignity of attending once-in-a-lifetime family rituals (para 7).
- A father's right to attend his son's marriage cannot be curtailed only because he is an accused in pending cases (para 7).
- Strong family ties, no flight risk and seized documentary evidence supported release (para 8).
- The interim bail order applies in all the FIRs recited in the petition (para 11).
- The Jailor/Superintendent may not insist on the ‘insolvency certificate’ (as printed) as part of the bail-bond condition (para 12).
Brief Facts
The petitioner, Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit, petitioned as next of kin and guardian ad litem of his father, an undertrial in multiple FIRs under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B, seeking interim bail so that his father could attend the petitioner's own wedding (para 1). All the FIRs allege financial misappropriation and irregularities concerning an urban credit cooperative society in Sirohi (para 2). The father had been in jail since 02.08.2018 (para 3). The petitioner's counsel submitted that the father was already on bail in some FIRs and had not misused an earlier interim bail granted on 24.05.2023 (para 4). The Public Prosecutor verified that the wedding was fixed for 12.11.2024 and the marriage card was genuine (paras 5-6).
Court's Findings
Article 21 guarantees the right to life to a person irrespective of whether he is an accused or an undertrial, and that right also encompasses the dignity of attending once-in-a-lifetime family rituals, such as a father attending his son's marriage (para 7). The Court stated that "Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity" and held that this right cannot and ought not to be curtailed on the ground that the father is an accused in pending cases (para 7). On the facts, the father had strong family ties and was not a flight risk (para 8). The prosecution evidence was mostly documentary and had been seized, so there was no likelihood of tampering with it (para 8). As the date of the marriage was not disputed, the Court found that the father needed to be personally present at his son's wedding: his presence would be crucial to the marriage arrangements, to bless the couple, and to keep up his dignity with his family and society (para 9).
Legal Principle
An accused or undertrial keeps the Article 21 right to live with dignity, which includes attending once-in-a-lifetime family rituals such as a son's marriage. Where the occasion is verified, the accused is not a flight risk and the evidence is documentary and seized, short interim bail may be granted for it despite pending cases (paras 7-9).
