HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR.

….

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 421/2022

Mohammad Nazar S/o Shri Khan Mohammad, aged about 40

years, R/o Village Navan Ward No. 10 Tehsil & District

Hanumangarh.

(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

The State Of Rajasthan through PP

2.

Santosh W/o Shri Raju, B/c Balmiki R/o Ward No. 6

Ellenabad District Sirsa Hariyana

----Respondents

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 248/2022

Janab Ali @ Juba S/o Shri Sahid, aged about 30 years, R/o Ward

No. 06, Nawan, District Hanumangarh.

(Presently Lodged At District Jail, Hanumangarh)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan through PP

2.

Santosh W/o Shri Raju, R/o Ward No. 06, Alanabad,

District Sirsa (Haryana)

----Respondents

(2 of 5)

[CRLAS-421/2022]

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 356/2022

Aaraf Ali S/o Late Gafur, aged about 28 years, R/o Ward No. 11

Nawa District Hanumangarh.

(Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail Hanumangargh)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan through PP

2.

Santosh W/o Raju, R/o Ward No. 6 Ellanabad Dist. Sirsa

Haryana

----Respondents

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 357/2022

Shah Jahan S/o Gulam Rasool, aged about 30 years, R/o Ward

No. 10 Nawa District Hanumangarh.

(Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan through PP

2.

Santosh W/o Raju, R/o Ward No. 6 Ellanabad District

Sirsa Haryana

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. N.R. Budania.

Mr. Vipin Makkad.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP.

Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore, for the

complainant.

(3 of 5)

[CRLAS-421/2022]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

Order

26/04/2022

The instant appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the

accused-appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with

F.I.R. No. 142/2021, Police Station Mahila Thana, Hanumangarh,

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,

323/34, 365, 376-D, 382 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections

3(1) (W)(i) 3(1) (W)(ii), 3(2) (v), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled

Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

against the common impugned order dated 05.03.2022 passed by

the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the respective bail applications

preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants

were rejected.

Learned counsel Mr. Aditya Singh Rathore puts in appearance

on behalf of the respondent No. 2 (complainant) in all the three

appeals.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent No.2 (complainant). Perused the material available on

record.

(4 of 5)

[CRLAS-421/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the statement

of the prosecutrix “S” has been recorded before the learned Trial

Court as PW-1; that the prosecutrix “S” has not supported the

story of the prosecution in regard to allegation of rape; that the

prosecutrix “S” has stated in her statement that, there are five to

six boys, she was beaten by them, I do not know the accused, she

refused to identify the accused-appellants, who were present

before the learned Trial Court; that the accused-appellants are in

judicial custody since 10.06.2021. With these submissions,

learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the benefit of bail

may be granted to the accused-appellant by allowing their

appeals.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 (complainant)

have vehemently and fervently opposed the appeals of the

accused-appellants and the prayer for granting the benefit of bail

made on behalf of the accused-appellants. Learned Public

Prosecutor stated since, the com