Vibhishan @ Bheem Singh Son Of ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2221 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 342/2021

1.     Vibhishan @ Bheem Singh Son Of Raghuveer, Aged About
       26 Years, Residents Of Taharpur, Police Station Suroth,
       District Karauli (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Karauli)
2.     Golu @ Golendra Son Of Samandar, Aged About 18 Years,
       Residents Of Taharpur, Police Station Suroth, District
       Karauli (Raj) (At Present In District Jail, Karauli)
                                                                 ----Appellants
                                  Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.     Prathvi Singh Son Of Shri Heera Lal Meena, Aged About
       48 Years, Resident Of Bhukrawali, Police Station Suroth,
       District Karauli (Raj)
                                                               ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan For State(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

09/03/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

10.02.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of

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

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

2. F.I.R. No.127/2020 was registered at Police Station Suroth,

District Karauli (Raj.) for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341,

379 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the dispute

took place when the complainant was plucking the mangoes. It is

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-342/2021]

also contended that the allegation of causing injury is not assigned

to the appellants.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed the complainant

about filing of the appeal.

5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant,

despite service.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

9. The order dated 10.02.2021 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

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /56

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)