Rajasthan HC: Fair Investigation & Victim Aid Paramount in SC/ST Act Cases; Court Defers Bail, Directs Scrutiny & Police Reform Compliance - 2025-06-16

Rajasthan High Court Defers Bail in SC/ST Act Case, Orders Sweeping Probe into Investigation Lapses and Victim Support

Jaipur , Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court, in a significant order, has deferred its decision on a bail appeal in a case involving charges of murder and atrocities against a member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) community. Citing serious concerns over the investigation's integrity, medical reports, and the lack of state mechanisms for police accountability, Justice Sameer Jain issued a series of directives aimed at ensuring a fair probe and adequate legal support for the victim's family. The court also called for an explanation from the state government on the non-implementation of Supreme Court directives on police reforms.

The order was passed in a criminal appeal filed by accused-appellants under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, challenging their detention in connection with FIR No. 168/2023, registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk. The charges include Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

Case Background

The case pertains to an alleged incident on June 27, 2023, which resulted in the death of an individual from the SC/ST community. The FIR was registered three days later, on June 29, 2023. The accused-appellants, described as young students aged 20 and 23 and employees of a leaseholder, have been in judicial custody for nearly a year.

Arguments Before the Court

Counsel for the Accused-Appellants argued for bail, submitting:

* A three-day delay in FIR registration.

* The appellants' youth, lack of criminal history, and false implication, stating they were merely employees.

* The existence of cross-FIRs.

* The deceased was allegedly a habitual offender involved in sand theft.

* The postmortem report and medical opinion suggested death due to blockage in the food pipe from vomiting while under alcohol influence, not physical injuries.

* Alleged injuries were simple, and the FSL report did not support the prosecution's narrative.

Counsel for the State and Complainant vehemently opposed bail, contending: * The deceased belonged to the SC/ST community and came from an impoverished background. * The FIR delay was due to the accused's attempts to compromise with the deceased's relatives via monetary offers and lack of police cooperation. * Bail applications of co-accused in the same FIR were previously rejected by the High Court, and a Special Leave Petition (SLP) against this rejection was dismissed by the Supreme Court. * The postmortem report allegedly overlooked a fatal neck injury, with the medical officer purportedly giving a contradictory report under the "undue influence of the sand mafia/lease holder." * Recovery of a lathi and blunt weapon, along with 14 injuries (including the grievous neck injury), indicated the deceased was beaten to death. * The charge sheet has been filed, but some accused are absconding, and investigation remains open under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. * The FIR was registered only after protests by local MLA and MP due to public outrage, leading to the case transfer to CID-CB. * Cross-FIRs were not linked and were being investigated separately, contrary to settled law. * The "undue influence of the sand mafia/lease holder" was evident in FIR delays, investigation commencement, FSL manipulation, and non-maintenance of the police station's daily diary (roznamcha). * Crucially, it was highlighted that no Police Complaint Authority has been constituted in the state despite the Supreme Court's directions in Prakash Singh and Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) , (2006) 8 SCC 1.

Court's Scrutiny and Observations

Justice Sameer Jain , after considering the arguments, made several critical observations highlighting serious discrepancies and systemic issues:

The deceased was from a poor SC/ST background.

The FIR was registered with delay, only after political intervention and public outcry, despite police being allegedly informed on the day of the incident (which was not recorded in the roznamcha).

A cross-FIR was not transferred to CID(CB) along with the main case.

Investigation against the "owners/lease holders of the sand mafia" (employers of the accused) remained open without explanation for the delay.

A medical report noted a "grievous" neck injury, yet the medical officer opined death due to food pipe congestion from 92% intoxication. The court noted, "(vii) That samples qua the medical report were obtained after the lapse of a period of 3 days, which casts a shadow of doubt on the said intoxication report/finding."

The bail pleas of co-accused were rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court.

The court also noted the complainant's lack of resources for legal recourse and the state's failure to establish a Police Complaints Authority as mandated by the Supreme Court over 18 years ago in Prakash Singh (Supra) , a directive reiterated by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in 2023.

Directions Issued by the Court

Given these "peculiarities," the Court deferred the final adjudication of the appeal to July 4, 2024, and issued the following interim directions:

Victim Support: The Registrar (Judicial) is to refer the matter to the National Commission for Schedule Tribes and the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority to ensure appropriate legal representation and aid for the complainant/deceased's family.

Investigative Accountability: State Authorities/Police are directed to produce the roznamcha for the date of the incident and explain delays in filing the supplementary charge-sheet (under Sec 173(8) Cr.P.C) and the reasons for not transferring the connected FIR to CID(CB).

Medical Scrutiny: Medical Authorities/Officers involved are to be present in Court on the next date to explain contradictions in the medical report and opinion.

Police Reforms Compliance: The Registrar (Judicial) is to send a copy of the order to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to furnish an explanation regarding the investigation's current status and the reasons for not formulating a Police Complaints Authority despite Supreme Court and High Court directives. This report is to be submitted before the next hearing.

Implications of the Order

The High Court's order underscores a proactive judicial approach to safeguarding the rights of vulnerable communities and ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice process. By deferring the bail decision and issuing comprehensive directions, the court has signaled its intent to thoroughly scrutinize the investigation and address systemic lapses, including the long-pending issue of police accountability mechanisms. The directions for victim support and the demand for explanations from top state officials are expected to bring greater transparency and urgency to the case and the broader issues it highlights. The matter is listed for further consideration on July 4, 2024.