Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 660 (RAJ)

Devraj v. State of Rajasthan

2020-09-17

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2020
JUDGMENT Devendra Kachhawaha, J. - Taking into consideration the rise in COVID-19 cases, specifically at Jodhpur and Jaipur, the functioning of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur from 14.09.2020 to 01.10.2020 shall be only through video conferencing. 2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 0140/2020, Police Station Banar, District Jodhpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 343, 365, 385, 384, 386 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants was rejected. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants appearing through video calling as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant through video calling and the learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has read the entire contents mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR) and stated that there was a property dispute between the parties in regard to a particular piece of land for the consideration of Rs. 12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lacs and Fifty Thousand only) and simply because wrong khasra number has been mentioned by the complainant Kalu Ram S/o Tulsa Ram, dispute arose between the parties; that in these circumstances, false FIR has been lodged against the present appellants; that the name of the appellantDev Raj S/o Hapu Ram has not been mentioned in the FIR; that the benefit of bail has already been granted by the coordinate bench of this Court to the co-accused, namely, Vinod Bhobharia S/o Baldev Singh and Sanwar Das S/o Chetan Das; and that the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accusedappellants. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has opposed the bail prayer of the accused-appellants and stated that there is a specific allegation against the accusedappellant Raju Ram S/o Manak Ram, that he has taken the amount of Rs.8,600/- from the purse of the complainant, therefore, he can be said to be a beneficiary. 6. 5. In reply, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has opposed the bail prayer of the accused-appellants and stated that there is a specific allegation against the accusedappellant Raju Ram S/o Manak Ram, that he has taken the amount of Rs.8,600/- from the purse of the complainant, therefore, he can be said to be a beneficiary. 6. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the bail prayer of the accused-appellants and stated that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, benefit of bail should not be granted to the present accused-appellants. 7. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and having scanned through the material available on record and further having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that no recovery or investigation is pending against the appellants; that the benefit of bail has already been granted by the coordinate Bench of this Court to the co-accused persons, namely, Vinod Bhobharia S/o Baldev Singh and Sanwar Das S/o Chetan Das, vide order dated 02.09.2020 (Criminal Appeal No. 612/2020); and that the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accusedappellants (1) Devraj S/o Shri Hapu Ram and (2) Raju Ram S/o Shri Manak Ram, both arrested in connection with FIR No.0140/2020, Police Station Banar, District Jodhpur, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.