Narender S/O Gajraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1629 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1111/2020

1.      Narender S/o Gajraj Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
2.      Jogender S/o Gajraj Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
3.      Pratap Singh S/o Kan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
4.      Babu Singh S/o Kan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
5.      Deepak S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
6.      Gajanand S/o Babu Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
        Chainpura, Nadoti, Karauli, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aslam S Khan for Mr. Girish Khandelwal For State : Mr. Deshraj Gosingha, PP Investigating Officer : Mr. Phool Chand Meena, RPS, Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Todabheem, Karauli

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

15/02/2021

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by order

dated 30.06.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Karauli,

whereby, bail application filed by the appellants under Section 438

Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.83/2020 was registered at Police Station Nadoti,

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1111/2020]

Karauli for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 447, 379 I.P.C.

and Sections 3(1)(g) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that

videography on which complainant side is placing reliance, is the

part of appellants side. It is also contended that earlier a criminal

case was registered and to status quo, the present F.I.R. has been

lodged. It is further contended that appellant-Narendra was not

present and he was present at the place of his posting.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal. It is contended that Section 18-A of

SC/ST Act bars entertaining the bail application under Section 438

of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that F.I.R. prima facie discloses

commission of offence under the SC/ST Act.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State, I am not inclined to entertain the appeal.

7. Criminal Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /81

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)