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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2134

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Farjand Ali, J.
Makka @ Mukhtiyar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and other – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 843 of 2023
Decided On : 17-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. NK Bohra.
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP.

The court ruled that lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses and prolonged detention justified granting bail under the SC/ST Act.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A - Bail application - The appellant, in custody for serious offences, sought bail, asserting innocence. The trial court denied bail, but the appeal succeeded due to lack of supporting evidence from key witnesses. (Paras 1, 5, 6)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The court emphasized the need for reasonable grounds to deny bail, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without sufficient evidence against him. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The appellant is in custody for serious charges under IPC and SC/ST Act. The trial court previously denied bail, but key witnesses turned hostile, leading to the appeal for bail.

Findings of Court:
The court found no reasonable ground to continue the appellant's detention, given the lack of evidence and the lengthy period in custody.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail in light of the prosecution's evidence and the time spent in custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of supporting witness testimony and prolonged detention without sufficient grounds warranted the granting of bail.

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant granted bail.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.69/2020, Police Station Sarada, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323 and 341 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2022 whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that he has nothing to do with the alleged offence, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant.

3. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

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

5. The opportunity of hearing was provided to the complainant but he did not turned up. The first informant Mukesh Kumar who happens to be the father of the deceased has been examined in the trial as P.W.-3 and has not supported the story of the prosecution rather turned hostile. Likewise, the injured eye-witness Ridhi has also been examined as P.W.-8 and he too turned hostile. Some other important witnesses have also not supported the story of the prosecution. All the accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. Thus, there appears no reasonable ground to keep the appellant behind the bars for further indefinite period. He is behind the bars since 02.06.2020. After going through the nature of allegation and the injury allegedly received by the victim and taking into account overall facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.10.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant-Makka @ Mukhtiyar S/o Dilawar 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