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

2024 Supreme(Raj) 49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI, J.
Kalu Khan, S/o. Shri Khurshed Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP and Anr. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2573 Of 2023
Decided On : 09-01-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Shreekant Verma, Mr. Anil Gupta.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Purohit.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the necessity of further incarceration, absence of reasonable grounds for the same, and the requirement for early culmination of the trial in deciding a bail application under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Headnote:

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Bail Application - Appellant Enlarged on Bail

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, seeking bail after being in custody for offenses under IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The trial Court had rejected the bail application.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the appellant was not named in the FIR and no identification parade had been conducted. It was observed that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that further incarceration of the appellant would be required. The Court concluded that the appellant deserved to be enlarged on bail.

Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's alleged false implication in the case, the necessity of further incarceration, and the requirement for early culmination of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the lack of the appellant's name in the FIR, absence of an identification parade, and the observation that the main allegation was upon another accused. The Court also considered the absence of reasonable grounds for further incarceration and the need for early culmination of the trial.

Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the accused-appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the specified bonds and sureties.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.122/2023 registered at the Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.501/2023, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. Despite intimation to the victim/complainant of the case regarding hearing of the bail plea, no one is present on his behalf.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant.

4. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. The appellant is not named in the FIR. No identification parade has been conducted. The main allegation of beating the victim is upon the accused Ashok Godara and it seems a case of beating only and not a case of making an attempt to kill. However, the same shall be adjudicated after a full-fledged trial. At present, there are no reasonable grounds to believe that further incarceration of the appellant would be required. Early culmination of the trial is not a seeming fate. In this background and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- 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.

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