Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 83 (RAJ)

Ramlal v. State of Rajasthan

2024-01-11

SAMEER JAIN

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Sameer Jain, J.) The instant criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused-appellant under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 65/2017 filed at Police Station Gandhi Nagar District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 302, 380, 449, 457, 450 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act. 2. The primary ground raised, in support of the instant appeal, pertains to the duration of custody of the accused-appellant and the delayed trial in connection therewith. In this regard, it is averred by the learned counsel for the accused-appellant that the accused-appellant has been in judicial custody since a period of 6 years and 9 months. Moreover, out of the 19 witnesses to be examined, only 5 are yet to tender their statements before the Court. In this regard, it was also averred that even though the trial is on the verge of completion, since the past one year, no witnesses have been examined and the trial is moving at a snail's pace. In support of the contentions raised herein-above qua the prolonged judicial custody and the right of the accused-appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India for a speedy trial, reliance has been placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in Praveen Rathore v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. in Special Leave to Appeal No. 6505/2023, SLA No. 11580/2022 titled as Hari Ram v. Union of India, Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) in SLP (Crl.) No. 915/2023 and P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka: Appeal (Crl.) No. 535/2000. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant in conjunction with the learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the instant appeal. In support of the opposition, it was averred that while considering the fourth appeal, filed pursuant to the rejection of the erstwhile appeals, this Court must only assess the change in circumstance and not deliberate on other grounds of merit, which have already been taken note of previously. Whereas, qua the contention pertaining to the prolonged judicial custody and delayed trial, learned counsel for the complainant averred that the trial is at the verge of conclusion as only 5 witnesses are yet to be examined. Whereas, qua the contention pertaining to the prolonged judicial custody and delayed trial, learned counsel for the complainant averred that the trial is at the verge of conclusion as only 5 witnesses are yet to be examined. Even otherwise, it was averred that if convicted under Section 302 of IPC, the accused-appellant would be sentenced to life imprisonment. Therefore, the instant appeal should be dismissed, irrespective of the arguments raised by the counsel for the accused-appellant. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides and taking note of the fact that the accused-appellant has been in judicial custody for a period of 6 years and 9 months; that out of the 19 witnesses to be examined, only 5 are yet to tender their statements before the trial court; that despite the trial being on the verge of conclusion, in the past one year, no witnesses have been examined and as a result, the trial is moving rather leisurely; that the Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Rama Chandra Rao (Supra), has read the right to speedy trial being within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India; that the said right to speedy trial qua the accused-appellant has been frustrated looking to his prolonged judicial custody; that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Praveen Rathore (Supra) and Hari Ram (Supra), while taking note of the prolonged judicial custody of the accused i.e. 4.5 years and 3 years, has enlarged the applicants on bail; that even otherwise, charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed; no criminal antecedents are reflected against the accused-appellant; that FSL report qua the rod allegedly used in the commission of the offense is negative; that the recovery witness i.e. Yogesh, has explicitly tendered in his statements, that even though his signature is reflected on the recovery memo, he was not present at the site of recovery when the recovery was effectuated; that the accused-appellant is a young man aged 25 years, having spent approximately 6 years and 9 months in judicial custody and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon the merits/demerits, this Court is inclined to allow the instant appeal. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer is set aside. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.11.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Ramlal S/o Jayram 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. 50,000/- and two sureties 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.