Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1969 (RAJ)

Liyakat Ali v. State of Rajasthan

2018-09-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2018
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - These criminal appeals under section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') have been filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the orders dated 16.7.2018 and 5.7.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.975/2018 and in Criminal Misc. Case No.943/2018 respectively by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Bikaner (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court'), whereby the trial court has dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of the appellants in connection with FIR No.68/2016 of Police Station Jaynarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner. 2. The appellants apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.68/2016 of Police Station, Jaynarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 458, 323, 354, 427, 380, 143 I.P.C. & Section 3(1)(10), 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant after a delay of 10 days. It is also submitted that the police did not file any FIR on the complaint lodged by the appellant Devi Lal on 13.3.2016 at Police Station Jaynarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner in relation to an incident took place on 12.3.2016, however, on 22.3.2016 i.e. after ten days of the said incident, the police registered the FIR on the complaint filed by the appellant and immediately thereafter the police has also filed FIR on the complaint of the complainant. 4. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant Devi Lal is in possession of the plot and the same has been observed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petitions No.12/2016 and 13/2016 preferred on behalf of the appellants Devi Lal and Sohan Lal against the order of concerned S.D.M. whereby the disputed plot in question was attached and a Receiver was appointed. In the said revision petitions, the revisional court quashed the order of attachment as well as the order of appointment of Receiver while observing that prima facie material is available on record to suggest that the appellant Devi Lal was in possession of the plot when the same was attached and a receiver was appointed. 5. In the said revision petitions, the revisional court quashed the order of attachment as well as the order of appointment of Receiver while observing that prima facie material is available on record to suggest that the appellant Devi Lal was in possession of the plot when the same was attached and a receiver was appointed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that as a matter of fact during the course of investigation, initially the Investigating Officer proposed to file negative final report, but later on, at the instance of the complainant, the investigation had been changed and now the police wants to arrest the appellants. It is also submitted that the appellant Liyakat Ali has falsely been implicated in this case as he is known to the appellant Devi Lal. It is also argued that the appellant Liyakat Ali is around 75 years of age. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants while placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Anr. reported in AIR 2018 SC 1498 has also argued that the benefit of anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused persons in the case where allegations for commission of offence under Section SC/ST Act are there. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail applications and it is argued that prima facie case for commission of offences as alleged in the impugned FIR is made out against the appellants, therefore, they do not entitle to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that many criminal cases are pending against the appellant Devi Lal in relation to this plot only and looking to this, he is not entitled to get the benefit of anticipatory bail. 9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 10. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused appellants under section 14A of SC/ST Act. 11. Accordingly, these criminal appeals filed under section 14A of SC/ST Act are allowed and the orders dated 16.7.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. 11. Accordingly, these criminal appeals filed under section 14A of SC/ST Act are allowed and the orders dated 16.7.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.975/2018 and dated 5.7.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No.943/2018 by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act Cases), Bikaner are set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellants Liyakat Ali S/o Late Haji Nasir Khan, Devi Lal S/o Shri Rewant Ram and Sohan Lal S/o Shri Ladhu Ram in connection with FIR No.68/2016, Police Station Jaynarayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner, they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) They 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) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.