Back
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Khet Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 782 of 2021, S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 706 of 2021 and S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 783 of 2021
Decided On : 09-09-2021
Bail - Criminal Appeals - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections - The court discussed the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations against the accused and the absence of recovery, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
Three criminal appeals were filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by accused-appellants in judicial custody, challenging the rejection of their bail applications related to multiple IPC and SC/ST Act offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that no injuries were attributed to the accused-appellants, no recovery was made from them, and no specific allegations were leveled against them, warranting the granting of bail.
Issues: Whether the accused-appellants should be granted bail given the lack of specific allegations and recovery against them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the absence of specific allegations and pending investigations, the accused-appellants were entitled to bail.
Result: The appeals are allowed, and the accused-appellants are granted bail.
ORDER
1. All these three criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the accused-appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 69/2021, Police Station Binjrad, District Barmer, registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 308, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(l)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned orders dated 13.08.2021, 16.08.2021 and 04.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, he does not to press the appeal (No. 782/2021) qua appellant No.1 Khet Singh S/o Poonam Singh because admittedly, the weapon (axe/iron rod) used in the incident has been recovered from his possession. Similarly, learned counsel for the appellants also does not want to press the appeal (No. 783/2021) qua appellant No.1 Balwant Singh S/o Hukam Singh, as from his possession also, weapon (axe/iron rod) used in the incident has been recovered from his possession.
4. Accordingly, in view of the above statement of the learned counsel for the appellants, Criminal Appeal (No. 782/2021) upto the extent of appellant No.1 Khet Singh S/o Poonam Singh is dismissed as not pressed. Similarly, Criminal Appeal (No. 783/2021) upto the extent of appellant No.l Balwant Singh S/o Hukam Singh is also dismissed as not pressed.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants, while arguing the respective appeals on behalf of the remaining appellants, stated that none of the injuries found on the body of the injured have been attributed to the present accused-appellants; that no recovery has been made from the present accused-appellants; that no specific allegation has been levelled against any of the remaining accused-appellants; and that the further trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants pray that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellants by allowing their respective appeals.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the present criminal appeals and prayer of bail made on behalf of the accused-appellants and stated that in the present case, one 'Lathi' used during the scuffle has been recovered from the accused Lakh Singh @ Pap Singh @ Gud Singh S/o Loon Singh but both the learned counsel are not in a position to controvert this fact that no specific allegation has been made against any of the appellants.
7. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly looking to the facts that no recovery or investigation is pending against the accused-appellants; that none of the injuries found on the body of the injured have been attributed to any of the accused-appellants; and that the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 13.08.2021, 16.08.2021 and 04.08.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants, (2) Lakh Singh @ Pap Singh @ Gud Singh S/o Loon Singh, (3) Lal Singh S/o Peerdan Singh and (4) Chatar Singh S/o Satidan Singh (CRLAS No. 782/2021), (1) Sona Ram S/o Mala Ram and (2) Mohan Ram S/o Mala Ram (CRLAS No. 706/2021) and (2) Takhat Singh S/o Swamp Singh,
The absence of specific allegations and recovery against accused-appellants justifies the granting of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that lack of specific allegations in the FIR and witness statements can justify the granting of bail under the SC/ST Act.
Bail can be granted in the absence of specific allegations against accused, especially when prolonged detention is involved.
The court ruled that the nature of injuries and completion of investigation are critical factors in bail decisions, emphasizing that serious allegations do not automatically warrant denial of bail.
The court established that the severity of injuries and absence of prior criminal records are critical considerations in granting bail under the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that bail should be granted based on parity with co-accused in similar situations, particularly when significant time has elapsed since the incident.
The court reinforced the principle of parity in bail applications under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, ensuring that similarly situated accused are treated equally.
The legal principle established is that the compromise between the parties and the filing of the charge-sheet can influence the decision to grant bail.
The principle of maintaining parity with similarly situated co-accused in the grant of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Subsequent bail applications require a change in circumstances; repeated applications without such change are not entertained.
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
