Rajasthan High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused’s son seeking interim bail for his father to attend his wedding, a single-judge bench of Arun Monga, J., granted interim bail and held that Right to live with dignity under Article 21 extends to an accused’s right to attend once-in-a-lifetime family rituals, i.e., son’s wedding.
In the instant matter, the petitioner’s father is accused in multiple FIRs for alleged financial misappropriation involving the Kheteshwar Urban Credit Cooperative Society, Sirohi. He has been in custody since 02-08-2018. The petitioner, who is the son of the accused, sought interim bail for his father to enable him to attend his wedding on 12-11-2024.
The petitioner argued that interim bail should be granted on humanitarian grounds and emphasised that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to attend significant family events, like the marriage of one’s child. The petitioner contended that his father had been previously granted bail in other matters, but never misused bail privileges and has complied with all conditions. The Public Prosecutor verified the wedding date and authenticity of the marriage invitation.
The Court held that Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life with dignity, which includes “the right to dignity of attend once in lifetime family rituals i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son.” The Court further held that “Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity” and such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that petitioner’s father is an accused in pending cases. The Court also noted that petitioner’s father is not a flight risk, as most evidence against him is documentary and secure.
The Court granted interim bail to the petitioner’s father for 15 days with standard bail conditions, including that the petitioner’s father must surrender by 5:00 PM upon completion of the 15-day period.
[Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v. State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3273, Decided on 24-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Subham Ojha and Mr. Tanay Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP, Counsel for the Respondent
Buy Constitution of India HERE
