Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Devkaran - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
BAIL - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court denied bail to the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the allegations, including specific claims of rape, and the contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements. The court highlighted the importance of the evidence presented and the procedural aspects of the case, ultimately concluding that the appellant did not meet the burden of proof required for bail under the circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant is in custody for alleged offences under Sections 376 IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, with a previous bail application dismissed. The appellant claims innocence and points to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements and a delay in filing the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix's statements contained specific allegations of rape against the appellant, and the contradictions raised did not warrant bail. The court considered the seriousness of the charges and the evidence available.
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act given the allegations and evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the nature of the allegations, particularly under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, necessitates a cautious approach to bail, especially when specific allegations of serious crimes are made and supported by the prosecutrix's statements.
Result: The criminal appeal for bail was dismissed, with the option for the appellant to file a fresh appeal after further developments in the case.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - This is the second criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 14A (2) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The first bail application of the appellant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dt. 16.07.2021.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. The appellant is in custody in connection with C.R. No.170/2021, Police Station Makrana, Distt. Nagaur for the offences under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(1)(2)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta in Criminal Misc. Case (Bail) No.144/2021, whereby the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not committed the offences as alleged against him and he is innocent. It is further submitted that challan of the case has been presented and there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in the FIR lodged by her. Learned counsel also submits that there is delay of four days in filing the FIR, which has not been explained. It is therefore prayed that appellant may be granted bail.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
6 .Apparently, in the statements of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. there is specific allegation of rape against the appellant. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the appellant.
7. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to file a fresh appeal after recording the statements of the prosecutrix.
The court reaffirmed that bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act requires careful consideration of the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence presented, particularly in cases in....
The court reinforced the principle that serious allegations under the SC/ST Act, particularly involving minors, necessitate careful consideration in bail applications, prioritizing the gravity of the....
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, and similar cases should be treated equally under the law.
The court's decision was influenced by the change in the prosecutrix's statement and the expected lengthy trial duration in granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the consideration of the entirety of facts and circumstances available on record, highlighting the importance of a thorough review of the case before m....
The court considered the contradictions in the statements of the prosecutrix and the anticipated lengthy trial period as grounds for granting bail to the accused-appellant.
The court established that consent in a marital context can influence bail decisions under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, highlighting the necessity for careful consideration of all facts ....
The court's decision was influenced by the specific allegations against the co-accused and the absence of specific allegations against the present appellant, along with the consideration of the lengt....
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offenses and the stage of the trial.
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
