Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1137 (RAJ)

Manohar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2001-07-24

J.C.VERMA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - As many as 20 petitioners including petitioner No. 18 to 20 belonging to Scheduled Caste (Chamar by caste) had approached this court for granting anticipatory bail u/s. 438 Cr.PC. in FIR Nos. 462/2000 P.S. Tijara for the offence u/s. 447 IPC r/w Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act). Case diary was called. 2. As per the complaint made by the Hansraj and Raghuvir R/o Bai Tehsil Tijara, the complainant alleged that accused persons including as many as five ladies, the accused belonging to the family of Manohar Lal, Bhup Singh, Lal Singh, Rampat including their sons and wife had entered into Khasra No. 460/881, 400/870 for the purpose of taking possessing and on their raising noise which attracted other people, these people ran away. The persons while entering into the field had said that this land does not belong to 'Chamar' (caste of the complainant) but to them. On the above-said basis FIR was recorded. 3. As per the case diary received, the dispute which remained between, the parties about the said land that both of the parties, were claiming that the land in dispute stood allotted to them by the authorities. Manohari Lal had also filed a civil suit and obtained the stay order u/s. 212 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which is on record. The parties were litigating in civil court. Even though there is a report of the Tehsildar that the possession was with the accused persons but the fact remains that the dispute actually between the parties was about the possession of title of land in question. 4. In the peculiar circumstances of the case when certain accused persons belonging to Scheduled Caste (Chamar) and the matter is still to be determined, even the ladies of the accused persons have been named, in my opinion, it is a fit case where the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners requires to be granted. 5. In view of the above-said circumstances and from the reading of the FIR, it is still to be established whether any offence u/s. 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out or not. However, anything observed above shall not effect the merits of the case/trial. 6. It is, therefore. 5. In view of the above-said circumstances and from the reading of the FIR, it is still to be established whether any offence u/s. 3 of the SC/ST Act is made out or not. However, anything observed above shall not effect the merits of the case/trial. 6. It is, therefore. directed that in the event of the arrest of the accused petitioners Manohar Lal S/o Shri Umrao Singh, Rampat S/o Shri Umraosingh, Ramratan @ Khunti S/o Shri Bhupsingh, Satish S/o Shri Manohar, Pooran S/o Shri Manohar Pradeep @ Pintu S/o Shri Manohar Laxman @ Lakshiya S/o Shri Bhupsingh Ramniwas @ Pappu S/o Shri Rampat Navin S/o Shri Lalsingh Rajesh @ Sethi S/o Seeshram By case Ahir R/o Majra Smt. Ramkala Wife of Lai singh Smt. Veervati Wife of Manoharlal Smt. Santosh @ Telo Wife of Rampat Smt. Krishna Wife of Satish Smt. Prem Wife of Pooran Mamchand S/o Shri Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Bholaram All by caste Ahir, R/o Bai, P.S. Tijara Distt. Alwar and Ratanlal S/o Shri Guttaram by caste Ohamar Babulal S/o Shri Mohanlal By caste Chamar Jaipal S/o Shri Ratanlal, By caste Chamar, R/o Bai, P.S. Tijara, Distt. Alwar, the SHO/Arresting officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station Tijara District Tijara in FIR No. 462/2000 of aforesaid police station shall release each of them on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the S.H.O. concerned, on the following conditions : 1. that the petitioner (s) shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. 2. that the petitioner (s) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court, or any Police Officer, and; 3. that the petitioner (s) shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. Bail allowed. *******