Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ramawtar S/O Durgalal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 220 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 220 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 January, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
Ramawtar S/O Durgalal vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1003/2020

Ramawtar S/o Durgalal, R/o Retholi Ps Sadar Hindaun Dist.
Karauli Raj.
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrish through VC For Complainant(s) : Mr. Kirodee Lal Meena through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

12/01/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

09.06.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act Cases, Karauli (Rajasthan) whereby, bail application

filed by the appellant under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.215/2020 was registered at Police Station Sadar

Hindaun for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 430 I.P.C. and

Sections 3(1)(S), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that in the F.I.R.,

there is no averment that the offence was committed considering

the complainant as member of the SC/ST community. Complainant

has not even mentioned in the F.I.R., that he belongs to SC/ST

community and thereafter, this offence has been committed with

him. It is contended that in the F.I.R., except for SC/ST offences,

all the offences under the Indian Penal Code are bailable.

                                        (2 of 3)                     [CRLAS-1003/2020]


Appellant    has     appeared        before       the      Investigating     Officer.

Complainant is not a Government Employee and from bare

reading of the F.I.R., offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out.

4. Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on "Prathvi

Raj Chauhan vs Union of India Writ Petition (C)

No.1015/2018" decided by the Apex Court on 10.02.2020,

wherein the Apex Court has held that from bare reading of the

F.I.R., offence under the SC/ST Act is not made out. Anticipatory

bail cannot be entertained by the Court. It was observed that the

High Court has to balance the two interests: i.e. that the power is

not so used as to convert the jurisdiction into that under Section

438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that it is used sparingly

and such orders made in very exceptional cases where no prima

facie offence is made out as shown in the FIR, and further also

that if such orders are not made in those classes of cases, the

result would inevitably be a miscarriage of justice or abuse of

process of law.

5. It is also contended that a false F.I.R. was lodged against the

complainant, as he was demanding money for giving water to the

villagers.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal. It is contended that in the cross F.I.R.,

Police has submitted negative final report. It is also contended

that police has registered a case under the SC/ST Act and Section

18-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 bars

entertaining of bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

7. I have considered the contentions.

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-1003/2020]

8. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

9. The order dated 09.06.2020 is quashed and set aside and

the Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. The

S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Sadar Hindaun in F.I.R.

No.215/2020 is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant he

shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond

in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together

with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following

conditions:-

(I). that the appellant shall make himself available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts

to the Court or any police officer, and

(iii). that the appellant shall not leave India without previous

permission of the Court.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter