SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
ROOP SINGH S/O SHANKAR SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLAS 1874 2021



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1874/2021

1.

Roop Singh S/o Shankar Singh, R/o Rajpura Bochan, P.s.

Jawaja, Dist. Ajmer (Raj) (At Present Confined In District

Jail Ajmer)

2.

Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Roop Singh, R/o Rajpura Bochan,

P.s. Jawaja, Dist. Ajmer (Raj) (At Present Confined In

District Jail Ajmer)

----Appellants

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2.

Shukha Ram S/o Mangla Ram, R/o Rajpura Blochan,

Jawaja, Dist. Ajmer

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. Amit Dadhich

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.S. Mehla,PP

Mr. Deshraj Kalwania

Mr. Kundan Kanwaria, IPS. A.S.P.

Beawar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

14/12/2021

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

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

who is in custody in connection with FIR No.333/2021 registered

at Police Station Jawaja, Ajmer for the offences under Sections

306 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that on an

accusation of committing offence of abetment of suicide, the

police arrested the appellants and after investigation they have

been chargesheeted. Learned counsel for the appellants submits

(2 of 3)

[CRLAS-1874/2021]

that the essential ingredients to constitute an offence under

Section 306 of IPC is conspicuously missing in the entire charge-

sheet. He submits that the word abetment has been defined under

Section 107 of the IPC; as per which there must be an instigation

and that instigation must be for the committal of suicide. Learned

counsel for the appellants submits that prior to three and four

days of the incident an FIR came to be lodged at the behest of the

appellant party against the accused who is deceased now. For the

accusation of committing offence under Section 452, 354, 323 and

379 of IPC however in stead of taking investigation in the matter

deceased was apprehended by the police as a preventive measure

by resorting provisions under Section 107 and 154 of Cr.P.C. and

as a matter of fact after his release by the executive Magistrate on

the next date was found hanged near by the police station. In

these circumstances, he submits that there is nothing on the basis

of which it can be inferred or presumed that it were the police,

who instigated the deceased to end his life. He further submits

that the trial would likely to take time and their further

incarceration in this matter would not be served for any purpose.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for

the complainant has opposed the bail plea.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the

investigation has not been done in this matter fairly.

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as

available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments

advanced, I am of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be

enlarged on bail.

(3 of 3)

[CRLAS-1874/2021]

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer is set aside. It is ordered

that the accused-appellants (1) Roop Singh S/o Shankar

Singh, and (2) Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Roop Singh, arrested in

connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be released on bail

provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- 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.

Mr. Kundan Kanwaria, IPS. A.S.P. Beawar, who is present in

person, is discharged.

(FARJAND ALI),J

TN/34

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top