Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Javed Khan & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 2022
Decided On : 21-04-2022
Prevention of atrocities - Bail Application - The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the bail application, granting bail to the accused-appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an appeal under Section 14a(2) SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the rejection of their bail application in connection with FIR No. 606/2020, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer for various offenses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the three prosecution witnesses had been declared hostile and there was no clinching evidence to sustain the accusations against the appellants, leading to the decision to allow the appeal and grant bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the bail application, the testimony of prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses and the absence of clinching evidence as grounds to allow the appeal and grant bail to the accused-appellants.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and ordered the release of the accused-appellants on bail.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14a(2) SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No. 606/2020, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the order dated 06.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Balotra, District Barmer, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
2. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that after rejection of the earlier appeal by this Court on 10.01.2022, three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court i.e. PW-9 Sagar Kumar, PW-10 Bunty and PW-11 Geeta Devi and all the three persons are eye-witness to the incident and they have not supported the prosecution case, thus, they have been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that except the testimony of these three witnesses PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11, there is no clinching evidence in the present case to sustain the accusations against the appellants. He, therefore, prays that the appeal of the appellant may also be allowed.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the appeal.
5. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, I am of the opinion that the appeal of the appellants deserves to be allowed.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.04.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Balotra, District Barmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Javed Khan S/o Shri Hanif Khan (2) Mohammed arif S/o Shri Mohammed Sabir arrested in connection with FIR No. 606/2020, Police Station Balotra, District Barmer shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The sufficiency of evidence and the testimony of key prosecution witnesses are crucial factors in deciding bail applications under the Prevention of Atrocities Act.
The court considered the nature of the injuries sustained by the victim and the awareness of the counsel regarding the filing of the charge sheet as crucial factors in granting bail to the accused.
The court considered the appellant's entitlement to bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the duration of incarceration and the condition of the victim.
The court's decision was based on the consideration of the trivial nature of the incident, the extent of the victim's injuries, and the appellant's period of incarceration in granting bail.
The court's decision to grant bail was influenced by the fact that star witnesses had turned hostile, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
The consideration of the co-accused's bail, charge-sheet filing, and trial duration influenced the court's decision in granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act and the application of the judgment of the Supreme Court in a simi....
The court considered the nature of the offenses, absence of injuries, and expected trial duration in deciding to grant bail to the accused-appellant.
The court established that in cases involving non-serious charges and prolonged trial durations, bail may be granted even under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court considered the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident in granting bail to the appellant.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
