Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 840 (RAJ)

Banwari Lal v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-04-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - Per office report, notice of appeal has been served upon the complainant/respondent No.2. However, no one has appeared on her behalf despite service. 2. Rd. Perused the material available on record. 3. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc Bail Case No.22/2021 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.127/2019, Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Section 148, 302/149, 341/149, 323/149, 326/149 IPC and under Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. Learned counsel Shri Jain urges that the material prosecution witnesses viz. Ajay @ Pawan Kumar (PW.1), Rahul (PW.2), Devendra (PW.3), Rajkumar (PW.4), Ramesh Kumar (PW.5) and Ravidass (PW.6) have been examined at the trial. None of them supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. He also contended that one more injured namely Vikas has still not been examined by the trial court but even from his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that the petitioner and Narendra @ Nindra reached the spot at a later point of time and that there is no specific allegation of the said witness regarding the appellants having inflicted any injury to the deceased Sonu Kanda. He further points out that the appeal of the co-accused Narendra @ Nindra has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2021 and thus, the appellant deserves same indulgence. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the eyewitnesses, referred to supra have been declared hostile at the trial. Even in the statement of the only remaining eyewitness Vikas, there is no specific allegation against the present appellants. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the eyewitnesses, referred to supra have been declared hostile at the trial. Even in the statement of the only remaining eyewitness Vikas, there is no specific allegation against the present appellants. 6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 16.01.2021 is set aside and it is ordered that the accusedappellants (1) Banwari Lal S/o Shri Mangilal & (2) Ved Prakash S/o Shri Mangilal arrested in connection with FIR No.127/2019 Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided each of them 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.