Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 3 (RAJ)

Mohammad Ishak v. State of Rajasthan

2025-01-02

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co- accused persons namely Vijaypal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14607/2024) & Kuldeep Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14608/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024. 3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of appellants is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants have not been named in the FIR. As per the FIR, the blunt weapon (danda) recovered at the instance of the present appellants do not contain any blood stains. 4. Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court. 6. The order dated 02.12.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- “1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offence under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ ST Act. 2. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offence under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ ST Act. 2. As per the prosecution, on 06.06.2024, the complainant- Rawtaram presented a written report before the SHO of Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh alleging inter alia that on 06.06.2024 at around 09:00- 10:00 A.M., the co-accused persons namely Aduram, Omprakash, Tarachand, Narayan, Suresh Kumar, Kishnaram, Lalchand and Tejpal, in unison, reached Kaluram’s field in a camper vehicle being laced with lathis and gandasi in their hands and started beating Kaluram and his nephew- Narendra. In the aforesaid incident, Narendra’s right elbow and both legs were grievously injured. The accused persons also damaged two tractors parked in Kaluram’s field and took away Kaluram’s and Narendra’s smart phones with them. After kidnapping Kaluram from his farm, the co-accused Omprakash took him to his field and inflicted several injuries to him. When the complainant reached Omprakash’s farm to rescue Kaluram, the co-accused Omprakash also beat him up due to which the complainant also received several injuries. The complainant immediately called the police, and when the police arrived at Omprakash’s farm, they rescued Kaluram and the complainant. During the course of treatment Kaluram succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the said report, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh against the accused persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. There is nothing on record of the case to indicate that the petitioners had any motive to commit the alleged crime. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the complainant- Rawtaram, Surendra Singh, Girdhari Singh, and Ranjeet Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that these eye- witnesses have even not named the petitioners. Awtar Singh, Lakhveer Singh and Tarachand have though named the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. but are not the eye-witnesses, and merely are the hearsay witnesses. Awtar Singh, Lakhveer Singh and Tarachand have though named the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. but are not the eye-witnesses, and merely are the hearsay witnesses. The eye-witnesses namely Narendra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have though named the petitioners as assailants but another eye-witness namely Shobha Singh in his statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has stated that the deceased- Kaluram was brutally beaten by the co-accused Omprakash, Lalchand and Tejpal whereas the petitioners merely stood near them with lathis in their hands. 4. It was urged that inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses prima facie indicates that a false story has been narrated by these witnesses only with a view to rope the present petitioners in a criminal case. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the prosecution, blunt weapon (danda) have been recovered at the instance of the present petitioners. However, the FSL report dated 30.07.2024 generated by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner shows that the no blood stains were detected on the blunt weapon (danda) recovered at the instance of the petitioner- Vijaypal. Also, the blood stains detected on the blunt weapon (danda) recovered at the instance of the petitioner- Kuldeep Singh were not sufficient to conduct test. The FSL report/recoveries made at the instance of the present petitioners, thus do not conclusively indicate complicity of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. 5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; challan has already been filed against them before the competent criminal Court; no recovery is due to be made from them; and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused petitioners. 6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioners, these bail applications deserve to be rejected straightaway. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 8. 6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioners, these bail applications deserve to be rejected straightaway. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner have not been named as assailants in the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainant who himself got injuries in the alleged incident which took place on 06.06.2024. There are huge inconsistencies and variations in the statements of the eye-witnesses/material prosecution witnesses of the case. In the FSL report dated 30.07.2024 there is no indication of human blood over the blunt weapons (danda) recovered at the instance of the present petitioners. Prima facie no evidence of petitioners having a motive to commit the alleged crime is available on record. The petitioners are in judicial custody and the investigation against them has already been concluded. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is nothing on record of the case to demonstrate that the petitioners if enlarged on bail would in any way adversely affect the trial. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 9. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners- Vijaypal S/o Gopiram and Kuldeep Singh S/o Raj Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for their appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail applications. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same. 11. A copy of this order be placed in each file.” 7. 10. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail applications. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same. 11. A copy of this order be placed in each file.” 7. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the appellants is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. T his Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused- appellants (1) Mohammad Ishak S/o Ayub Khan & (2) Aasif Ali S/o Moharrum Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R.No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh shall be released on bail; 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.