Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Raj) 1193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Mohammad Aslam @ Salman - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 495 of 2024.
Decided on : 24-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. SR Godara, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP.

The court ruled that the rejection of bail was unsustainable due to lack of evidence against the appellant and precedence set by the co-accused's bail grant.

Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 14A - Bail application - The appellant, in custody for offences under IPC and SC/ST Act, sought bail after co-accused was granted bail - Court found no evidence of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing from justice - The order rejecting bail was set aside. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Judicial Custody - The appellant has been in custody since 25.01.2024, and the trial is expected to take a long time, warranting consideration for bail. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.03/2024 for various offences, including IPC and SC/ST Act violations. The co-accused was granted bail, and the appellant argued for similar treatment based on the circumstances of the case.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the offences under certain sections were not proved against the appellant, and there was no apprehension of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.

Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's case was distinguishable from that of the co-accused who was granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of bail was unsustainable given the lack of evidence against the appellant and the precedent set by the co-accused's bail grant.

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted bail.

ORDER :

Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.03/2024, registered at Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sri. Ganganagar, for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 295A and 120B of IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri. Ganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

3. Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the co-accused- Mohmmad Mojram @ Samir has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 08.04.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 226/2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present appellant is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused- Mohmmad Mojram @ Samir who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. The order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this Court in the case of Mohmmad Mojram @ Samir v. State of Rajasthan is reproduced below for ready reference:-

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating agency before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that as per the investigating agency, the prosecutrix freely who is aged about 35 years and is a mature woman, has freely exercised her choice of consciously developing a consensual sexual relationship with the main accused and brother of the petitioner namely Mohd.Aslam @ Salman. Learned counsel submitted that no offence under Section 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been found to be made out against the present petitioner as well as co-accused by the investigating agency. Learned counsel submitted that the offence under Section 295A IPC has been found to be proved against the petitioner, however prosecution sanction from State Government is still awaited for filing challan against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court prima facie finds that the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have not been found to be proved against the present petitioner. This Court also prima facie finds that though the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 295A IPC have been found to be proved against the present petitioner, but the prosecution sanction for filing challan agai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document