Balveer @ Mangalsingh S/O ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2494 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 374/2022

Balveer @ Mangalsingh S/o Bhanwarsingh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Rajput Ki Dhani, Badiyal Khurd, Police Station Bandikui,
Distt. Dausa (Raj)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2.     Vijesh Singh S/o Jansiram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
       Gudliya Police Station Kolwa, District Dausa
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Umesh Vyas, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

23/03/2022 The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of

the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant,

for anticipatory bail in FIR No.526/2021 registered at Police

Station Bandikui, District Dausa for the offences under Sections

143, 323, 341, 379, 427, 325 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(S) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

against the order dated 08.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge,

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, whereby, the bail

application preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the

appellant was rejected.

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that he has

already informed the complainant. Despite service, no one has put

appearance on behalf of the complainant.

(2 of 3) [CRLAS-374/2022]

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

appellant is not named in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits

that the appellant and the complainant are not known to each

other and the appellant has been implicated malafidely by certain

persons. Learned counsel further submits that no recovery is due

from the appellant. Learned counsel further submits that in the

FIR, no allegation has been levelled against the appellant and no

other case is pending against him. Learned counsel further

submits that owner of the wine shop-Shri Radheyshyam has also

lodged an FIR No.0527/2021. Learned counsel has also placed

reliance on the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of

Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

(2018(1) WLC (SC) Cri. 620) and in the case of Chaudhary

Pravinbhai Revabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (R/Criminal Appeal

No.1625/2021) passed by Gujarat High Court. Hence, appeal of

the accused-appellant may be granted.

Learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the

appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the material available on record.

As per injury report of Brijesh, he received four injuries,

which are simple in nature. As per injury report of Sharwan, he

received six injuries, out of which, five injuries are simple in

nature and for one injury, opinion is reserved. As per injury report

of the injured Suresh, he received four injuries, out of which,

three injuries are simple in nature and for one injury, opinion is

reserved. The appellant is named in the Police statements of

complainant-injured Brijesh, Sharwan and Suresh and as per their

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-374/2022]

Police statements, the appellant hurled casteist abuse at them.

Therefore, looking to the statement of the complainant-injured,

Brijesh, Sharwan and Suresh and taking into consideration overall

facts and circumstances of the case; but without expressing any

opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it not proper to

enlarged the appellant on anticipatory bail.

The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the

appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant.

Hence, appeal of the appellant is dismissed.

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

Ashish Kumar/73

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)