Akshya Kumar S/O Jaysingh @ Pappu vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2509 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 549/2021

Akshya Kumar S/o Jaysingh @ Pappu, Aged About 21 Years,
Pesha Majduri, R/o Raypur Aheeran, Police Station Pacheri Kalan
District Jhunjhunu Raj (At Present Confined In District Jail
Jhunjhunu)
                                                                  ----Appellant
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.     Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Rajesh, R/o Raipur Ahiran
       Bhuhana Police Station Pacheri Kalan District Jhunjhunu
                                                               ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma through VC For Complainant(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa through VC For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

29/06/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

10.03.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities Cases), Jhunjhunu, whereby, bail application filed by the

appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.204/2020 was registered at Police Station Pacheri-

Kalan, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that appellant is

a young boy, aged twenty one years. Appellant has been made an

accused on the basis of confession made before the police which is

not admissible in evidence. It is also contended that from the FSL

report, involvement of appellant is not made out. The last seen

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-549/2021]

evidence was recorded on 13.12.2020 i.e. after the arrest of

appellant. It is further contended that deceased was aged forty

five years. Appellant is not having any mark of injury. If the

deceased was throttled to death, he must have tried to save

himself and in those circumstances, he must have caused injuries

to the assailant.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal. It is contended that appellant throttled

the deceased and is threatening the family members of deceased

to enter into compromise.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

7. The order dated 10.03.2021 is quashed and set aside and

the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-

appellant 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 the satisfaction of the trial Court with the

stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to

which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /28

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)