Nandkishore S/O Ghasiram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 3967 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 771/2022

1.     Nandkishore S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 52 Years, Resi-
       dent Of Gudliya Ki Dhani, Ward No. 34, Shitla Mata,
       Chaksu, Ps Chaksu, District Jaipur
2.     Kailash S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of
       Gudliya Ki Dhani, Ward No. 34, Shitla Mata, Chaksu, Ps
       Chaksu, District Jaipur
3.     Rajendra S/o Ghasiram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident
       Of Gudliya Ki Dhani, Ward No. 34, Shitla Mata, Chaksu,
       Ps Chaksu, District Jaipur
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.     Jagdish S/o Nathuram, R/o Lakhwas, Chaksu, District
       Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. K. Sharma, Sr. Adv., Mr. Rahul Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.

Mr. Ashvin Garg

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

19/05/2022

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed in

connection with FIR No.91/2022 registered at Police Station

Chaksu, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 143,

323, 341, 336 & 504 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)

(va) SC/ST Act.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellants

have been wrongly implicated in this case. A bare reading of FIR,

(2 of 3) [CRLAS-771/2022]

offence of SC & ST Act is not made out against the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that villagers had

complained against Shankarlal for encroachment of land. So due

to enmity, present FIR was lodged. Nothing is to be recovered

from the appellants. So, appellants be enlarged on anticipatory

bail.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments

in Hitesh Verma Vs. The State of Uttrakhand & Anr.; Crimi-

nal Appeal No.707 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal)

No.3585 of 2020), Smt. Reena Vs. State of Rajasthan,

through PP. & Anr.; S.B. Criminal Appeal No.72/2022,

Pavas Sharma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, through - The

Station House Officer and Anr.; 2021 SCC OnLine Chh 288 :

(2021) 2 CGLJ 228; CRA No.806 of 2020 and Khuman Singh

Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2020) 18 SCC 763; Criminal

Appeal No.1283 of 2019.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the

respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellants and submitted that offence of atrocities

is made out against the appellants. So, anticipatory bail is not

maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted

that custodial interrogation of the appellants are required. So, the

bail be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment

in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.;

Writ Petition (C) Nos.1015 and 1016 of 2018 (Under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

(3 of 3) [CRLAS-771/2022]

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be just and proper to release the appellants on bail.

7. The order dated 27.04.2022 passed by the learned Special

Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I is quashed

and set-aside and this appeal is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting

Officer, Police Station Chaksu, Jaipur City (North) in FIR

No.91/2022 is directed that in the event of arrest of the appel-

lants-Nandkishore S/o Ghasiram, Kailash S/o Ghasiram and

Rajendra S/o Ghasiram they shall be released on bail, provided

each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his

satisfaction on the following conditions :-

(i). that the appellants shall make themselves available for

interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the appellants 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 appellants shall not leave India without previous

permission of the court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Seema/116

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)