Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1801 (RAJ)

Ravinder Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-12-13

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.11.2016 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar In bail application No. 1/310/2016, whereby the ball application filed by the appellant under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Data Ram got registered FIR at Police Station, Tijara, District Alwar with regard to an Incident alleged to have taken place on 23.10.2016. The police registered a case for the offences under Sections 323, 341 IPC and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, whereupon the Investigation was commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the appellant moved a ball application before the court below, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 22.11.2016. Hence, this criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that alleged offence under Section 3(2) (Va) of SC/ST Act and 323, 341 IPC are bailable. Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that Section 14A has been inserted In the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, which Is reproduced as under: "14A. Appeals-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained In the Coded of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an appeal shall lie, from any judgment sentence or order, not being an Interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court, both on facts and on law. (2)..... (3).... (4).... Learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that In view of new provision 14A Inserted In the SC/ST Act, this appeal is maintainable. The accused appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter, hence he/she/they should be released on ball. 4. This Court asked the question from Mr. B.N. Sandu, AAG for the State whether appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act Is maintainable or not for granting anticipatory ball to the appellant? He replied that although the appeal Is maintainable, but he has opposed the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. He replied that although the appeal Is maintainable, but he has opposed the appeal filed by the appellant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and In the light of the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, whereby the power has been given to the Court either to accept or reject the appeal filed by the appellant, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem It just and proper to allow the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. Therefore, this appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act Is allowed and It Is directed that In the event of arrest of appellant Ravinder Kumar S/o Mahaveer Prasad In FIR No. 693/2016 registered at Police Station, Tijara, District Alwar, he shall be released on ball by the concern SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond In the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs, Two Lakh), with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh) each to his/her satisfaction on the following conditions: (I) That the appellant shall make himself available for Interrogation by a police officer, as and when required; (II) That the appellant 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 to any police officer; (III) That the appellant shall not leave (?) without previous permission of the court; (IV) That the appellant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he Is accused or suspected.