Back
RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Gajendra Singh Rawat – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicants Gajendra Singh Rawat and Mahendra Singh Rawat @ Monu Rawat are in judicial custody in FIR No.20 of 2022, under Section 394, 323 and 504 of IPC, and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act'), P.S. Chaukhutiya, District Almora. They have sought their release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, on 23.10.2022, at 8 late in the evening when the informant was returning to his house, he was attacked, assaulted and looted by the applicants.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that there is a lot of improvisation after filing of the FIR.
5. Learned counsel for the State would submit that the informant has supported the prosecution case in his statement during investigation.
6. The Court wanted to know from the learned State Counsel as to whether any recovery was made from the applicants? The answer to it is in negative.
7. The question, which would perhaps fall for scrutiny in the trial is that if the intention is of loot, whether the section 3 (1) (r) and 3 (1) (s) of the Act would be applicable?
8
The court considered the lack of recovery from the applicants and raised the question of the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case of int....
The lack of support from key witnesses and the bail granted to co-accused can be considered as factors in granting bail in criminal cases.
The court may grant bail after considering factors such as the nature of the case, the co-accused's bail status, and the applicant's criminal record.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to grant bail after considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court has the discretion to set aside the rejection of a bail application if it deems the order cannot be sustained based on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The court ruled that allegations of caste-based abuse must occur in public view to invoke the bar on anticipatory bail under the Atrocities Act, which was not established in this case.
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
