SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Ranjeet - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1844 of 2020
Decided on : 05-01-2021

Advocates appeared:
Abdul Kalam Khan, Advocate, F.R. Meena, Advocate, Asgar Khan, Advocate

Headnote:

Bail - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail considering the nature of allegation against the appellant, his length of custody, filing of charge-sheet, and release of co-accused on bail.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR for various offences under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant sought bail based on the grounds of not being named in the FIR and the nature of the incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deemed it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail, considering the nature of allegation against the appellant, his length of custody, filing of charge-sheet, and release of co-accused on bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the gravity of the allegation against him and the circumstances of the case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the allegation, length of custody, filing of charge-sheet, and release of co-accused on bail as the basis for granting bail to the appellant.

Final Decision: The order of the lower court was quashed and set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT

Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J. - The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) (for short "the Act of 1989"). The appellant has been arrested in connection with FIR No.267/2020 registered at Police Station Taleda, District Bundi for the offence (s) under Section(s) 143, 341, 323 & 302 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989 and later on the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323 & 302 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(V) of the Act of 1989.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that he is not named in the FIR and the eye witness Manoj, in his statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, did not level any specific allegation against the present petitioner. He submitted that from the material on record, it is apparent that the incident occurred at the spur of moment without any premeditation. He submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 11.09.2020, charge-sheet has been filed, he has no criminal antecedents, co-accused Anil Saini has been extended benefit of bail by this Court and prayed for his release on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposing the appeal submitted that in view of the gravity of allegation against the appellant, he does not deserve indulgence of bail.

4. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of allegation against the appellant, his length of custody, filing of charge-sheet, release of co-accused Anil Saini on bail by this Court and the material available in the charge-sheet; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.

5. The order dated 08.10.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Bundi is quashed and set-aside and the appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-appellant Ranjeet S/o Mangilal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top