Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.
Dhagla Ram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1298 of 2021
Decided On : 19-01-2022
Lawyers - Bail Application - Interpretation of Evidence and Circumstances
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal for bail under Section 14a(2) SC/ ST (Prevention of atrocities) act in connection with FIR No. 538/2021 for offenses under Sections 384, 376(2)(N), 377 and 506 IPC I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) and 3(2) (Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act. The bail application was rejected by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail based on the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the appellant's relationship with the prosecutrix and the corroborated statements of the prosecutrix.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail in connection with the mentioned offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the appellant's relationship with the prosecutrix, the circumstances surrounding the case, and the corroborated statements of the prosecutrix.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the bail application was set aside. The accused-appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
JUDGMENT
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Lawyers are not physically appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).
2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14a(2) SC/ ST (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 538/2021, Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 384, 376(2)(N), 377 and 506 IPC I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) and 3(2) (Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act against the order dated 18/12/2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
3. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant and the prosecutrix Mst. 'K' are known to each other for pretty long time and FIR has been registered after a period of one year and ten months for which there is no plausible explanation. Learned counsel submits that the appellant had been depositing the amount towards the recharging of the mobile and other expenses as and when demanded by Mst.'K'. The appellant was moving with Mst.'K' freely in the town without raising any alarm even after the first incident of rape is stated by Mst.'K' in her statements. The prosecurtrix is a major married lady of 26 years.
5. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant gets corroborated from the statements of Mst.'K' recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
6. Learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
7. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18/12/2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Dhagla Ram S/o Shri Kewal Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 538/2021, Police Station Udaimandir, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes 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 interpretation of evidence and circumstances, including the relationship between the appellant and the prosecutrix, played a crucial role in the Court's decision to grant bail.
The credibility of evidence and the lack of credible evidence against the appellant influenced the court's decision to grant bail.
The court's decision was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the statement of the prosecutrix, in allowing the appeal and ordering the release of the accu....
The decision was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances, including the non-support of the prosecution case by material witnesses and the bail granted to the co-accused.
Interpretation of bail provisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act and the consideration of facts and circumstances in granting bail.
The lack of evidence connecting the appellant with the murder and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the situation of the country and the jails influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal....
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the country and jails can be considered as a factor in granting bail, especially in cases where no overt acts are reported against the appellants.
The court's decision was influenced by the specific allegation of rape against the appellant by the prosecutrix in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC, and the nature of the accusa....
The Court has the discretion to grant bail based on the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case.
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
