IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Kailash S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Dhakad – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) Nos. 938, 971 of 2024
Decided On : 04-11-2024
(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14A(2) - Bail application - Appeals filed against rejection of bail application by Special Judge - Medical board found injuries insufficient to cause death - No motive established against appellants - Prosecution failed to show apprehension of influencing witnesses - Appeals allowed, bail granted with conditions. (Paras 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were arrested in connection with FIR for offences under IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The deceased died due to cardiac arrest, and the injuries inflicted were not sufficient to cause death.
Findings of Court:
The court found no motive for the alleged crime and no apprehension of the appellants influencing witnesses.
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of injuries to cause death and the motive behind the alleged crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the medical board's findings did not support the prosecution's case, and the appellants were entitled to bail due to lack of evidence against them.
Result: Appeals allowed, bail granted.
JUDGMENT :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1. These instant appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been filed by the appellants against the order dated 15.6.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh in Cr. Misc. Case No. 130/2024, whereby the bail application filed by the appellants, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 101/2024 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 341, 342 and 302/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that as per prosecution, the deceased – Lokesh died due to the injuries inflicted upon him by the present appellants. Drawing attention of the Court towards the post mortem report of the deceased, learned counsel submitted that as per the post mortem report dated 06.06.2024, the cause of death of the deceased was cardiac arrest, which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Further, the SHO PS Begun, on 11.6.2024, requested the Medical Jurist CHC Parsoli to give specific opinion as to whether the injuries inflicted upon the deceased by present appellants were sufficient to cause his death or not. In response thereof, it was informed by the Medical Jurist CHC Parsoli that the injuries caused to the deceased had no direct relation with the cardiac arrest which is the cause of death of the deceased.
3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody, investigation against them has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellants.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. The opinion dated 06.06.2024 expressed by the Medical Board which conducted post mortem of the body of the deceased reads as under:
7. The reply to the communication dated 11.6.2024 issued from the office of SHO PS Begun to the Medical Jurist, CHC Parsoli reads as under:
^^e`rd ds vkbZ pksVsa e`R;q Hkkfjr ugha FkhA mDr pksVksa dk cardiac arrest ls lh/kk laca/k ugha gSA**
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case so also the challan papers, this Court prima facie finds that the medical board has not found the injuries sustained by the deceased sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. This Court also prima facie finds that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellants had a motive to commit the alleged crime or at the time when the incident occurred, injuries were inflicted upon the deceased with a predetermined manner. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of appellants’ influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.
9. Accordingly, these appeals under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are allowed. The order dated 15.6.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellants- (i) Kailash S/o Sh. Kanhaiyalal Dhakad, (ii) Ashok S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Dhakad, (iii) Mukesh Kumar S/o Shvilal Dhakad and (iv) Labh
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the appellants to the cause of death and lack of motive.
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.
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.
Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The court established that bail can be granted based on the absence of criminal history, the nature of the allegations, and the duration of custody, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.
The court's decision to grant bail was based on the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the allegation, the appellant's custody, and the absence of criminal antecedents.
The court granted bail based on the appellant's custody duration and the release of similarly situated co-accused, without commenting on the merits of the case.
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.