IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Kuldeep Mathur, J.
Kamal S/o Tara Chand and ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan-State, Through PP and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A(2), 3(2)(v) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - Appeal - Held, statements of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before competent criminal court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of case, Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail - Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 13.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur in Cr. Case No.57/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellants, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.437/2022 registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 302, 109, 120 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of eyewitnesses namely Amba Lal and Vinay Kumar, learned counsel submitted that aforementioned witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have clearly denied the presence of the present appellants in the Bolero which was ran over the deceased by the co-accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that the eye-witnesses of the incident have clearly stated that the appellants were only standing at the place of incident. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants were not sitting in the offending vehicle, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellants.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that presence of the present appellants in the offending vehicle prima facie could not be established on the basis of the statements of the eye witnesses though, the appellants have been named in the FIR by the complainant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and so also the statements of the eye witnesses namely Amba Lal and Vinay Kumar recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the competent criminal court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellants on bail.
7. Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is allowed. The order dated 13.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur in Cr. Case No.57/2023 is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellants-Kamal S/o Tara Chand and Rahul @ Bhunvesh S/o Dinesh Kumawat shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.437/2022 registered at Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the instant appeal. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
The court granted bail to the appellants, emphasizing that the injuries were grievous but not life-threatening, and the investigation was concluded.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly considering the severity of injuries and the duration of custody.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the rejection of a bail application can be set aside if it is found to be unsustainable.
The court granted bail based on the appellant's custody duration and the release of similarly situated co-accused, without commenting on the merits of the case.
Point of law :Grant of Bail - appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the same has not been considered properly and the appellant is in custody
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.