Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1607 (RAJ)

Girraj Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-17

FARJAND ALI

body2022
JUDGMENT Farjand ali, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14a(2) SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.120/2022 Police Station Badi, District Dholpur, for the offences under Sections 143, 332, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) act. 2. Mr. N.a. Naqvi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Syeed adeel Naqvi has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim, thus no need to issue notice. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is an elected representative of the people and Member of the Legislative assembly and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences and has a good reputation in the society having no criminal antecedents, however, out of political vendetta and owning to the pressure mounted by the opposite party, his name has been dragged unnecessarily into the matter. There is no case against him for inflicting injuries to the victim. If the highest allegation as levelled in the FIR is taken on its face value, the same relates to abusing and misbehaving with the victim. The maximum punishment for abusing a person of SC/ST under Section 3(1)(c) is not more than five years. He is behind the bars. His further incarceration would not be require for investigation, thus keeping him behind the bars before completion of investigation and trial would tantamount to pre-conviction detention, which is not permissible in law. There is no apprehension that he will flee from justice or would not be readily available for the trial or would hamper the evidence or temper with the prosecution witness or in any way impede the course of investigation or trial. He would abide by conditions, if any, imposed by this Court. Respectable persons of the society are ready and willing to furnish sureties for him, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Mr. N.a. Naqvi, Senior advocate along with Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma counsel for the complainant have vehemently and fervently urged that present is not a fit case for bail. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Mr. N.a. Naqvi, Senior advocate along with Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma counsel for the complainant have vehemently and fervently urged that present is not a fit case for bail. He submits that causing injuries to a public servant in office by a public representative is nothing but an act of goons. He submits that at least the appellant should be detained in custody till completion of the investigation and submission of the charge sheet. However, they too, do not refute the submission that the accused will be readily available for the trial or otherwise not abuse the opportunity, if granted. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record including the case diary and the injury report. It is a trite law that the provision of bail is neither punitive nor preventive. The gravity of the offence or the severity of the punishment alone is not a factor to be considered while adjudicating the bail plea. There are several other aspects which are required to be considered simultaneously with the gravity and nature of the offence like apprehension that if released on bail accused would flee from justice or would hamper the evidence. Pre-conviction detention is not warranted by law. as per criminal jurisprudence, imprisonment may follow after a judgment of conviction but should not precede it. This Court has to ensure that the accused would remain present on the date of culmination of trial to receive the sentence in the event of his being found guilty. The object of keeping the person in custody is to ensure his availability for the smooth trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. In this case, neither any apprehension has been shown by the counsel for the State or respondent nor any material has been placed on record from which an inference can be drawn regarding the aforesaid apprehension. The seriousness of the allegation or the availability of the material in respect thereof of existence of prima facie case alone are not the only considerations while entertaining the bail plea. as per allegations, the appellant was not involved in thrashing up the victim rather it is alleged that five-six persons who came alongwith MLas gave beating to him. The seriousness of the allegation or the availability of the material in respect thereof of existence of prima facie case alone are not the only considerations while entertaining the bail plea. as per allegations, the appellant was not involved in thrashing up the victim rather it is alleged that five-six persons who came alongwith MLas gave beating to him. Whether the incident took place only on the account that the victim was a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe cannot be ascertained. There was another cause behind the incident which is not known and rather could not be ascertained with certainty at this juncture, as the same can be adjudicated after evidence is adduced in the trial and till then there appears no justification for keeping an elected public representative under incarceration in a democratic setup. Thus, viewing it from any angle, I do not feel persuaded to allow further incarceration of the appellant as the same would not serve any fruitful purpose. The State authorities shall ensure protection of the complainant. 7. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of atrocities) Cases, Dholpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant-Girraj Singh Malinga S/o Shri Chhote arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- 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.