HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 227/2022

1.

Sampatlal S/o Mangalram Koli, aged about 42 Years, R/o

Jhalkari, Nagar Mandi Road, Bypass, Hindaun City, Police

Station Kotwali Hindaun City, District Karauli (Rajasthan)

2.

Heeralal S/o Ararchand Koli, aged about 60 Years, R/o

Sukhdev Pura, Hindaun City District Karauli (Raj)

3.

Mukesh S/o Shivlal Koli, aged about 40 Years, R/o Sukhdev

Pura, Hindaun City District Karauli (Raj)

----Accused-Appellants

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

__ Respondent

2.

Gopal S/o Babulal, R/o Khatikpada, Koliyo Ki Athai, Hindaun

Karauli Rajasthan

----Complainant-Respondent

For Appellant(s)

:

Ms. Dipti Agarwal, Advocate

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Ola, Public Prosecutor

Ms. Vijaylaxmi Gautam, Advocate for the

Complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

09/02/2022 :

Instant appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein

after referred to as 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred on behalf of

accused-appellants, namely (i) Sampatlal, (ii) Heeralal and (iii) Mukesh,

who are apprehending their arrest in F.I.R. bearing No.246/2021

registered at Police Station Hindaun District Karauli for offences

punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 384, 307, 504 and

506 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 (1) (c) (r) (s) and 3 (2)

(va) of the Act of 1989 against the impugned order dated 27.01.2022

(2 of 3)

[CRLAS-227/2022]

passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli, whereby,

the bail application preferred under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 on behalf of the accused-appellants was rejected.

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants

submits that the parties have already entered into compromise and

resolved their dispute amicably, hence, the appeal of the accused-

appellants may be granted and they be released on bail.

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing

for the accused-appellants, has placed reliance upon the judgments

passed by the Hon'ble 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).

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has

opposed the appeal, whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the

complainant, has no objection, if the anticipatory bail is granted.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused

the material made available on record.

Head-notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the

appellants 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

Head-notes of the judgment cited by learned counsel for the

appellants in the case of Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra) read as under:-

(3 of 3)

[CRLAS-227/2022]

“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