Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1988 (RAJ)

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

2021-10-20

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
ORDER 1. The instant appeals have been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the accused-appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with common F.I.R. No. 260/2020, Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(s)(R), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned orders dated 07.09.2021 and 28.09.2021 respectively passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the present accused-appellants have not been named in the First Information Report (FIR); that the names of the accused-appellants have also not been mentioned in the parcha-bayan as well as in the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely, Mukesh and Gopal Jat; that the accused-appellants are behind the bars since the month of June, 2021; that the charge-sheet has been filed; and that the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellants by allowing their respective appeals. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the appeals & prayer for granting the benefit of bail made on behalf of the accused-appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant stated that the car used in the incident belongs to the accused Rahul although the same has been registered in the name of some another person; that the present accused-appellants are also involved in the incident; that the fact of involvement of the accused-appellants has been mentioned in the parcha bayan as well as in the statement of the witnesses that Rakesh and his cousins (ekek dk yMdk) and, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-appellants. 5. 5. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly looking to the facts that the accused-appellants have not been named in the First Information Report (FIR); that the names of the accused-appellants have not been mentioned in the parcha bayan as well as in the statements of the eye-witnesses; that there is no specific allegation against the accused-appellants; that the charge-sheet has already been filed in this case; and that the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned orders dated 07.09.2021 and 28.09.2021 respectively passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, Rahul S/o Vijay Singh (Appeal No. 859/2021) and Saksham Lila S/o Shri Mahendra Lila Baniya (Appeal No. 960/2021), both arrested in connection with common F.I.R. No. 260/2020, Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them 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.