Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA, J
KALU URF BALA S/O RAMCHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS / 3198 / 2024
Order :
1. Both of these criminal appeals have been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Tonk (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Bail Application(C.I.S.) No.150/2024, whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellants in connection with FIR No.56/2024 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 436, 504 & 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Later on charges were framed for offences under Section 427 & 307 of IPC.
2. The first appeals of both the appellants were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.10.2024 with liberty to file fresh appeal after examination of the material prosecution witnesses namely; Dev Lal, Birbal & Shoeb.
3. Heard.
4. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the statements of the material prosecution witnesses namely; Dev Lal, Birbal & Shoeb.
5. The witness- Birbal (PW2) has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. Witness Shoeb (PW1) has also not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. Though the witness- Dev Lal who is the complainant, has made specific allegations against the present accused- appellants as regards the involvement in the crime, however, taking into consideration the evidence of the two other independent witnesses namely; Dev Lal & Shoeb, the probability of false implications cannot be ruled out and the accused- appellants are in custody since 02.07.2024 and as per the list of witnesses out of total 21 prosecution witnesses only four has been examined so far, this Court feels that the accused-appellants deserve to be released on bail.
6. Accordingly, these criminal appeals filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act is allowed and order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota is set aside. It is directed that appellant shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.54/2024 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City, provided each of them shall execute a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
7. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence from hostile witnesses and the potential for false implications, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
The court established that the lack of corroborative evidence and inconsistencies in testimony are critical factors in determining bail under the SC/ST Act.
The court's decision was influenced by the consideration of the fact of compromise and the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case in setting aside the order rejecting the bail application an....
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act in allowing the appeal and granting bail to the appellant.
The court has the discretion to allow bail under Section 14-A of the SC/ST Act based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court established that bail applications under the SC/ST Act must be evaluated with regard to the specifics of the case, including the severity of injuries and the treatment of co-accused, ensuri....
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of Section 14-a(2) of the SC/ST act, which allowed for the appellant's release on bail based on the circumstances of the case.
The court established that the rejection of bail must be justified by substantial reasons, particularly considering the severity of injuries and the duration of custody.
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court determined that the essential elements of the alleged offences under the SC/ST Act were absent, warranting the grant of bail to the appellants.
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
