Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1641 (RAJ)

SHOBHA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-07-25

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 28.6.2017 passed by learned District & Sessions Judge, Jodhpur in Cr.Misc. Case No. 193/2017 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 228/2015, registered at Police Station Banar (Jodhpur) for the offences under Sections 376(2)(g), 354 & 384 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/4 & 11/12 of POCSO Act. 3. The first application for bail moved on behalf of the appellant was rejected by this Court giving him liberty to file a fresh application for bail after recording of the victim's evidence at the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that the victim has adopted the policy of pick and choose upon being examined before the trial Court. Whilst she totally gave up the allegations levelled against the co-accused Jhoomar Lal and Shrawan and was declared hostile and subjected to cross examination to that extent, at the same time, she has made farfetched and uncorroborated allegations against the present appellant. He thus urges that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned P.P. vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by the appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that whilst in the FIR and in the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., 1973 with which she was confronted at the trial, there was allegation of physical misbehaviour etc. against the co-accused Jhoomar Lal and Shrawan also, but upon being examined before the trial Court, she gave up these allegations and even refused to identify those two accused. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.6.2017 is set aside. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances available on record but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 28.6.2017 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Shobha Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 228/2015, registered at Police Station Banar (Jodhpur) shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each 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.