Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Gajendra Singh Rawat & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2536 of 2022
Decided On : 13-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Praveen Kumar Duhan, Advocate, Bhupendra Prasad, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate

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 intention for loot, ultimately granting bail to the applicants.

Headnote:
Bail - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - The court granted bail to the applicants who were in judicial custody under Section 394, 323, 504 of IPC, and Section 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court considered the lack of recovery from the applicants and raised the question of the applicability of the Act in a case of intention for loot. Ultimately, the court found the case fit for bail and granted it to the applicants.
Fact of the Case:

The applicants were in judicial custody under various sections of IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for allegedly attacking, assaulting, and looting the informant.
Finding of the Court:

The court, after considering the arguments from both parties, found the case fit for bail and granted it to the applicants.
Issues: The issues involved the nature of the alleged crime, the lack of recovery from the applicants, and the applicability of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in a case of intention for loot.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of recovery from the applicants and the question of the Act's applicability in the context of the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicants were granted bail upon furnishing personal bond and executing two reliable sureties.

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. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

9. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicants Gajendra Singh Rawat and Mahendra Singh Rawat @ Monu Rawat be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bond and executing two reliable sureties, by each of them, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document