Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2194 (RAJ)

Ashok v. State of Rajasthan

2023-12-06

ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

body2023
ORDER : 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. 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 13.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawaimadhopur in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 263/2023 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody since 26.11.2022 in connection with FIR No. 364/2022, Police Station Bamanwas, Sawaimadhopur for offences under Sections 365, 302, 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. Later on, the police filed chargesheet against Kishmant, Dharamveer, Deepak, Vikas and Ashok, appellant herein for offences under Sections 365, 302, 120B IPC, for offences under Sections 365, 302, 120B IPC and Sections 3-2(v), 3-2(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act against the accused Manish and for offences under Sections 365, 302, 120B IPC, Sections 3-2(v), 3-2(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act against the accused Afridi. 3. The first appeal under Section 14A (2) preferred on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2023 giving liberty to the appellant to renew the prayer for bail after recording statement of the prosecutions witnesses Shivsharan, Bhawani Singh and Rohitash. The statement of these prosecution witnesses have been recorded at trial and thereafter, the appellant has preferred this second appeal for bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ramlal submitted a written report at Police Station Bamanwas inter alia alleging that on 25.11.2022, at about 8:00 AM, Dharamveer took his nephew Vedprakash away on his motorcycle from his house. Vedprakash did not return home till 2 O' Clock in the night upon which, he made calls on his mobile phone but he did not receive it. Upon inquiry, he came to know that three boys out of whom, one Kishmat Meena, who is cousin of Vedprakash, took him to Mandawari side in a Swift Car (No. RJ 25 CM 4869). Upon inquiry, he came to know that three boys out of whom, one Kishmat Meena, who is cousin of Vedprakash, took him to Mandawari side in a Swift Car (No. RJ 25 CM 4869). It was also alleged in the report that on the next day, at about 4 O' Clock, he came to know that the dead body of Vedprakash is lying in Ramgarh Pachvara Police Station and police has arrested six persons who were involved in the murder of Vedprakash Meena. These persons were trying to dispose of the dead body in the Ramgarh Pachwara police station area but the police apprehended Kishmat, Afridi, Vikas, Deepak, Manish and Ashok at the spot along with the dead body. The accused persons abducted his nephew Vedprakash and killed him. On the basis of this report, the FIR No. 364/2022 came to be registered at the Police Station Bamanwas District Sawaimadhopur for the aforesaid offences and the police stated investigation. During investigation, the police arrested the accused persons including Ashok, appellant herein on 26.11.2022 and since then, he is in custody. 5. Arguing the instant appeal, learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident as none of the prosecution witness has ever stated that they saw the accused persons murdering the deceased Vedprakash Meena. He submits that as per the prosecution case, PW-5 Shivsharan Meena & PW-6 Bhawani Singh both run private clinics. The deceased Vedprakash was allegedly taken to them for his medical treatment and checkup. However, both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile during the course of trial. While referring to the statement of Dr. Ravi Kumar (PW-4), who was one of the member of the medical board who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Vedprakash, he contends that as per report (Ex.P/20), no grievous injury was found on the vital part of the deceased. In his cross-examination, he also stated that there are so many reasons for death due to shock and that he did not specify as to which particular injury was the cause of death. As per the opinion of the medical board, the cause of death was shock brought about or a result of cumulative effect of antemortem bodily injuries mentioned in the PMR. As per the opinion of the medical board, the cause of death was shock brought about or a result of cumulative effect of antemortem bodily injuries mentioned in the PMR. The doctor also admitted that the possibility of sustaining such injuries cannot be ruled out if a person met with a road accident or fell from some height. There were no fractures found on the body of the deceased. It was also not mentioned in the report the type of weapon with which the injuries were sustained to the deceased Vedprakash Meena. Learned counsel contends that whether the injuries were caused with sharp weapon or blunt weapon, same has not been clarified in the report. On the strength of these submissions, he urges that actually the deceased got injured and the accused appellant was taking him to hospital in the car but the police did not allow them and wasted important time which is evident from the statement of Rohitash (PW-7) and during this period, the deceased passed away. The appellant and other accused persons were trying to do every possible thing which can save the life of the appellant. He also argues that nothing has come on record which shows that there was previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased. Besides this, he argues that the bail applications of the co-accused Manish, Dharamveer and Rajprakash @ Raju have already been accepted by this Court and coordinate Bench and they have been released on bail. The appellant is in jail since 11.12.2022 and trial will take long time. He thus, craves indulgence of bail for appellant in this case. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by appellant's counsel. They submit that the appellant along with other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and brutally murdered the deceased. It is also contended that the bail application of the co-accused Afridi has already been rejected by coordinate bench of this Court. They thus, sought dismissal of the instant appeal. 7. They submit that the appellant along with other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy and brutally murdered the deceased. It is also contended that the bail application of the co-accused Afridi has already been rejected by coordinate bench of this Court. They thus, sought dismissal of the instant appeal. 7. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar and especially the fact that there is no eyewitness of the alleged incident; PW-5 Shivsharan and PW-6 Bhawani Singh to whom the deceased was taken for medical treatment have not supported the prosecution case; no grievous injury was found on the vital part of the body of the deceased; the cause of death is shock as a result of cumulative effect of bodily injuries and no specific injury has been opined to be the cause of death; the admission of doctor that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P/20 may happen as a result of road accident or fall from height so also considering the period of custody but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 8. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 13.10.2023 is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant Ashok S/o Shri. Ram Singh, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 364/2022, Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes 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.