Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1617 (RAJ)

Kan Singh son of Poonama v. State of Rajasthan

2016-11-16

DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Accused-appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 4th November, 2016 passed by the Special Sessions Court, Prevention of Atrocities on SC/ST, Jalore whereby, the bail application filed by the accused-appellants has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 3. As per the allegations mentioned in the FIR No. 140/2016 Police Station Raniwara filed under Sections 143, 447 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(F)(4)(10) of Prevention of Atrocities on SC/ST Act, the accused-appellants tress passed upon the land belonging to the complainant-Taga Ram and started encroaching upon the land by way of fixing of angles and wires. On raising the objections, they started abusing and manhandling the complainant-Taga Ram. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that civil litigation has also been filed by the complainant which is pending consideration. He has also stated that no injury is alleged to have been caused to the complainant. The matter is of civil nature which would be decided by the competent civil court and it has been designedly turned into a criminal matter wherein, the accused persons deserve to be enlarged on bail while setting aside the impugned order dated 4th November, 2016. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer stating that the accused-appellants are not complying with the orders passed by the civil Court so that do not deserve any concession. 6. Having heard and considered the arguments raised by both the sides, this Court is of the view that primarily the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. The allegations made in the FIR are of trivial nature. Taking these facts into consideration, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 4th November, 2016 and allow this appeal. Consequently, it is ordered that if the accused-appellants furnish two surety bonds of Rs. 20,000/- each along with personal bond of Rs.40,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they will appear before the Court as and when called upon to do so, they will be enlarged on bail. 7. Accordingly and in view of above, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 4th November, 2016 is set aside.