Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 11619
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Anil Kumar Upman, J
Ram Chopara @ Baccha S/o Lt Dili Chopara – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1726/2025
For the Appellant(s): Mr. Amit Dadhich, Mr. Vishal Kumar
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
For the Complainant(s): Mr. Devanshu Sharma
Bail granted based on compromise and lengthy custody without prejudging case merits.
Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 14(2)(A) - Bail application rejected - Parties entered into a compromise during appeal - Appellant in custody for a significant period - Court considers totality of circumstances and allows bail based on compromise and prolonged custody. (Paras 1, 6, 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Principles for grant of bail - The court looks at the nature of charges and custody duration but does not opine on merits during bail hearings. (Paras 4, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from a bail denial related to serious charges in FIR No.328/2024 under the SC/ST Act and other sections. The complainant indicated a desire not to pursue the prosecution after a compromise.
Findings of Court:
The appellant is granted bail on the condition of personal bond and sureties, emphasizing conditions for compliance and attendance at the police station.
Issues: Whether the bail should be granted based on the compromise and the time served in custody?
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that bail is appropriate given the circumstances of the case and compromise, noting concerns around prolonged incarceration and the nature of the charges should not be prejudged at this stage.
Result: The appeal is allowed; the previous bail denial ordered by the Special Judge is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application grounds and charges (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments concerning false implication and compromise (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on fairness and procedures (Para 5) |
| 4. decision to grant bail under specific conditions (Para 6) |
| 5. conditions and implications for bail granted (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
Order
08/07/2025
1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota in Bail Application (CIS) No.93/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.328/2024 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , (in short ‘ BNS ’) 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 126 (2), 115(2), 109(1), 118(1), 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS , 2023, Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that on an earlier occasion, prayer for bail was made on behalf of the appellant however, same was rejected by this court vide order dated 15.01.2025 thereafter, parties have entered into compromise as complainant of this case does not want to pursue the prosecution against the appellant. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that appellant is in custody since 01.10.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. He submits that there is allegation against the appellant of causing life threatening injury and offence under Section 109 (1) (Corresponding to section 307 of IPC) has been found proved against the appellant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for complainant submits that under the intervention of respected persons of society, appellant and complainant have entered into compromise. He further submits that he has no objection if facility of bail is granted to the appellant.
5. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and the fact that parties have entered into compromise as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.
7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Ram Chopara @ Baccha S/o Lt Dili Chopara, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.328/2024 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota City, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. It is made clear that the accused-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.
9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant, as directed above. In case the appellan
