Rajasthan High Court
Girraj Singh Malinga S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2022
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 837/2022
Girraj Singh Malinga S/o Shri Chhote, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Thakurpada, P.s. Badi Kotwali, District Dholpur,
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Dholpur)
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Harshadhipati S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Mahershi Bhawan, Opposite Terminal No. 1,
Sanganer, P.s. Sanganer, Jaipur At Present Posted At
Assistant Engineer (O/m) Jvvnl, Badi, District Dholpur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Syeed Adeel Naqvi
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/05/2022
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant,
who is in custody in connection with FIR No.120/2022 Police
Station Badi, District Dholpur, for the offences under Sections
143, 332, 353, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) &
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Syeed
Adeel Naqvi has put in appearance on behalf of the
complainant/victim, thus no need to issue notice.
(2 of 5) [CRLAS-837/2022]
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for
the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
is an elected representative of the people and Member of the
Legislative Assembly and he has nothing to do with the alleged
offences and has a good reputation in the society having no
criminal antecedents, however, out of political vendetta and
owning to the pressure mounted by the opposite party, his name
has been dragged unnecessarily into the matter. There is no case
against him for inflicting injuries to the victim. If the highest
allegation as levelled in the FIR is taken on its face value, the
same relates to abusing and misbehaving with the victim. The
maximum punishment for abusing a person of SC/ST under
Section 3(1)(c) is not more than five years. He is behind the bars.
His further incarceration would not be require for investigation,
thus keeping him behind the bars before completion of
investigation and trial would tantamount to pre-conviction
detention, which is not permissible in law. There is no
apprehension that he will flee from justice or would not be readily
available for the trial or would hamper the evidence or temper
with the prosecution witness or in any way impede the course of
investigation or trial. He would abide by conditions, if any,
imposed by this Court. Respectable persons of the society are
ready and willing to furnish sureties for him, therefore, benefit of
bail may be granted to the appellant.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application. Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Senior Advocate along with Mr.
Bhuwnesh Sharma counsel for the complainant have vehemently
(3 of 5) [CRLAS-837/2022]
and fervently urged that present is not a fit case for bail. He
submits that causing injuries to a public servant in office by a
public representative is nothing but an act of goons. He submits
that at least the appellant should be detained in custody till
completion of the investigation and submission of the charge
sheet. However, they too, do not refute the submission that the
accused will be readily available for the trial or otherwise not
abuse the opportunity, if granted.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record including the case diary and the injury report.
It is a trite law that the provision of bail is neither punitive nor
preventive. The gravity of the offence or the severity of the
punishment alone is not a factor to be considered while
adjudicating the bail plea. There are several other aspects which
are required to be considered simultaneously with the gravity and
nature of the offence like apprehension that if released on bail
accused would flee from justice or would hamper the evidence.
Pre-conviction detention is not warranted by law. As per criminal
jurisprudence, imprisonment may follow after a judgment of
conviction but should not precede it. This Court has to ensure that
the accused would remain present on the date of culmination of
trial to receive the sentence in the event of his being found guilty.
The object of keeping the person in custody is to ensure his
availability for the smooth trial and to receive the sentence that
may be passed. In this case, neither any apprehension has been
shown by the counsel for the State or respondent nor any material
has been placed on record from which an inference can be drawn
regarding the aforesaid apprehension. The seriousness of the
(4 of 5) [CRLAS-837/2022]
allegation or the availability of the material in respect thereof of
existence of prima facie case alone are not the only considerations
while entertaining the bail plea. As per allegations, the appellant
was not involved in thrashing up the victim rather it is alleged that
five-six persons who came alongwith MLAs gave beating to him.
Whether the incident took place only on the account that the
victim was a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe
cannot be ascertained. There was another cause behind the
incident which is not known and rather could not be ascertained
with certainty at this juncture, as the same can be adjudicated
after evidence is adduced in the trial and till then there appears no
justification for keeping an elected public representative under
incarceration in a democratic setup. Thus, viewing it from any
angle, I do not feel persuaded to allow further incarceration of the
appellant as the same would not serve any fruitful purpose. The
State authorities shall ensure protection of the complainant.
7. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as
available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments
advanced, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 12.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur is set aside. It is ordered
that the accused-appellant-Girraj Singh Malinga S/o Shri
Chhote arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be
released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with
(5 of 5) [CRLAS-837/2022]
the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing
and as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
RAJAT KUMAR /s-186
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
