RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.
Kalu Ram - Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 894 of 2021
Decided On : 26-11-2021
BAIL - SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT - The court analyzed the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, particularly in relation to bail applications. The court emphasized the importance of the absence of direct allegations against the appellant and the completion of the investigation, leading to the decision to grant bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Kalu Ram, appealed against the rejection of his bail application by the Special Court under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, following allegations of serious offenses including rape, where the prosecutrix did not name him as an accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix had not identified the appellant as a perpetrator in her statements, and no test identification parade was conducted. The court noted that the charge-sheet had been filed and the trial would take time, which influenced its decision to grant bail.
Issues: Whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the serious allegations under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lack of direct accusations against the appellant, the completion of the investigation, and the procedural safeguards in place warranted the granting of bail.
Result: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail on the condition of furnishing a personal bond and sureties.
JUDGMENT
Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - The appeal, under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ?Act of 1989?), is preferred by appellant to assail impugned order dated 08.09.2021, passed by Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali (for short, ?learned trial Court?) rejecting his bail application.
2. Complainant lodged FIR No.52/2021, registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali against appellant attributing offences under Sections 363, 366 & 376(D) IPC and Section 3(2)(w1), 3(2) (5) of the Act of 1989.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant prosecutrix "J" has levelled allegation of committing rape against co-accused Suresh, Aajad and two others and she has not named petitioner as an accused who committed rape with her. It is further stated that no test identification parade of the petitioner was conducted by police and he is not having any criminal antecedents. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that after completion of investigation, charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial will take its own time.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and looking to the statements of prosecutrix "J" recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and more particularly, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take its own time, I feel persuaded to set aside the impugned order.
6. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set aside. As a consequence of setting aside of the impugned order, the bail application of the appellant is allowed and it is ordered that accused-appellant, Kalu Ram S/o Sh. Rama Ji, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.52/2021, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds 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.
The court established that in the absence of direct allegations and with the completion of the investigation, bail can be granted even in cases involving serious charges under the Scheduled Castes an....
The court established that the lack of evidence for abetment of suicide is a critical factor in determining the grant of bail under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities....
The court established that in cases involving serious allegations, the presumption of innocence and the circumstances surrounding the accused's detention must be carefully weighed against the nature ....
The court considered the length of time the appellant had been in custody and the expected duration of the trial in granting bail.
The court's decision was primarily based on the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and the facts and circumstances of the case, in line with the judgment passed by the ....
Granting bail based on length of custody, filing of charge sheet, and absence of criminal antecedents without expressing opinion on the merits of the case.
The prosecutrix's lack of support for the allegation of rape and the absence of specified injuries influenced the court's decision to grant bail to the accused-appellants.
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 provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the interpretations of the same, as well as the specific c....
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....
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.