Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1026 (RAJ)

Fateh Singh @ Fatte v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-07-06

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2016, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 325, 447, 427, 504, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(IV)(X)2(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant appearing through video conferencing. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that initially charge- sheet was filed against the appellant and co-accused on 17.05.2016 and the supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 05.11.2017; name of the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR; the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case because he is the son in law of the complainant's family; as per prosecution story, 'lathi' has been recovered from co-accused Dinesh and Ramkunwar who have been enlarged on bail; benefit of bail has already been granted to other co-accused persons, namely Rameshwar, Lalaram, Mansingh, Shiboo, Ramkunwar, Hariom, Bhag Singh and Dinesh; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant by allowing the present appeal. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant through video conferencing have seriously opposed the appeal and stated that evidence of material witnesses is yet to be recorded before learned trial Court. 5. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and particularly looking to the facts that benefit of bail has already been granted by co- ordinate Bench of this Court to co-accused persons namely, (1) Rameshwar vide order dated 21.03.2018 (Bail ApplicationNo.571/2018), (2) Lalaram vide order dated 14.11.2018 (Bail Application No.1982/2018), (3) Man Singh vide order dated 23.05.2016 (Bail Application No.6197/2016), (4) Shibbo @ Shiv Singh & Ors. vide order dated 05.04.2016 (Bail Application No.3753/2016), (5) Ramkunwar vide order dated 08.08.2016 (Bail Application No.8470/2016), (6) Hariom vide order dated 08.08.2016 (Bail Application No.8476/2016) and (7) Dinesh vide order dated 22.08.2016 (Bail Application No.10503/2016); and allegations levelled upon the accused-appellant are similar to that of the other co-accused persons; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.04.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bharatpur, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Fateh Singh @ Fatte S/o Bholaram @ Bhola, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2016, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with 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.