HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 72/2022

Smt. Reena W/o Vedsingh Jat, R/o Somla, Police Station Suroth,

District Karauli (Raj)

----Appellant

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2.

Kailash Chand S/o Banshilal, R/o Maksoodanpura, Police

Station Malarna Doongar, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Advocate

(through video conferencing)

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. M.K. Sheoran, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

02/02/2022

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)

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

appellant, for anticipatory bail in FIR No.118/2020 registered at

Police Station Suroth, District Karauli for the offences under

Sections 143, 323, 353, 221 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(S)

& 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the

order dated 14.12.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli, whereby, the bail

application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

appellant was rejected.

Learned State counsel has submitted that he has

served notice upon the complainant. Despite service, no one has

put appearance on behalf of the complainant.

(2 of 4)

[CRLAS-72/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the

present matter, no overt act has been assigned to the appellant.

Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is a lady and

has no criminal antecedents. It is further submitted that the co-

accused Pooja Kumari and Tannu have already been enlarged on

bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Karauli vide

order dated 26.10.2021. Learned counsel further submits that the

case of the appellant is on similar footing to that of co-accused.

Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments passed by

the Apex Court in the cases of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of

Uttarakhand (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584) and Prathi

Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (AIR 2020 Supreme Court

1036). Hence, appeal of the accused-appellant may be granted.

Learned State counsel has strongly opposed the appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the material available on record.

Head notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel

for the appellant in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) read as

under:-

“Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3(1)(r), S.3(1)(x)-

Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.482- Offence of

atrocities – Quashing of charge-sheet – As per FIR,

allegations of abusing informant were within four

walls of her building and not within public view –

Offence under S.3(1)(r) is not made out merely

because informant belonging to a Scheduled Caste –

Charge-sheet liable to be quashed.”

(3 of 4)

[CRLAS-72/2022]

Head notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel

for the appellant in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) read

as under:-

“Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.438 – Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.18A – (as inserted

by Amendment Act 27 of 2018)

Constitution of India, Art.21 – Anticipatory bail –

Offence of atrocity under Act of 1989 – Challenge

to denial – Bar created by Ss. 18 and 18A against

grant of anticipatory bail in case of atrocity against

SC and ST shall not apply unless prima facie case is

made out – However in case of misuse of

provisions Court can quash the cases to prevent

misuse on settled parameters.”

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel

for the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the case; but

without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the

case, this Court is of opinion that the appellant deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The

impugned order dated 14.12.2021 pa