Rajasthan High Court
Neha Jain D/O Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jp:39512) on 13 December, 2023
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2023:RJ-JP:39512]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 868/2022
Ram Lakhan Disaniya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Disaniya, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Disaniya Ki Dani, Aala Ka Bas, Dungari,
Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Vinod Bathara S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bathara, R/o Staff
Quarter No. 101, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Campus, Staff
Sitapura Tonk Road, Shivdaspura Jaipur (Raj)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 776/2022
Neha Jain D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of B-42, Shiv Nagar, Janta Colony, Police Station
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Dr. Vinod Bathara S/o Shri Mohan Lal Bathara, R/o
Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Campus Staff Quarter 101,
Sitapura Tonk Road, Jaipur City (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 793/2022
Neha Jain D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of B-42, Shiv Nagar, Janta Colony, Police Station
Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Dr. Mangi Lal Deganwa S/o Shri Omprakash Deganwa,
R/o Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Campus, Staff Quarter 101,
Sitapura Tonk Road, Jaipur City (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1085/2022
[2023:RJ-JP:39512] (2 of 6) [CRLAS-868/2022]
Ram Lakhan Disaniya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Disaniya, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o Disaniya Ki Dhani, Aala Ka Bas, Dungari,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Mangi Lal Degawa S/o Shri Omprakash Degawa, R/o Staff
Quarter Number 101, Mahatma Gandhi Hospital Campus,
Staff Sitapura Tonk Road, Shivdaspura Jaipur City (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Naina Bhasker
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghan Shaym Singh Rathore, GA
cum AAG with
Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P.
Mr. Ramesh Chandra Jangid for
Mr. Harish Agrawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
13/12/2023
SB Criminal Appeal Nos.868/2022 & 776/2022:-
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants under
Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015)
(for brevity "the Act of 1989") apprehending their arrest in
connection with F.I.R. No.283/2019 registered at Police Station
Banipark, District Jaipur (West) for the offence (s) under
Section(s) 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B & 109 IPC & Section
3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.
Learned counsel for the appellants, inviting attention of this
Court towards the contents of the FIR No.17/2019 dated
02.07.2019 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant-Dr. Vinod
[2023:RJ-JP:39512] (3 of 6) [CRLAS-868/2022]
Bathara alongwith other persons as also the contents of the
instant FIR No.283/2019 dated 11.09.2019, would submit that for
the same incident, he has lodged two FIRs. She submits that in
the earlier FIR No.17/2019, after their arrest, they have already
been extended benefit of regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. She
submits that the subsequent FIR is abuse of the process of law.
She further submits that the FIR is bereft of any allegation to
constitute an offence under the Act of 1989. She, therefore, prays
for benefit of pre-arrest bail for the appellants.
Although, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant opposed the prayer;
but, could not dispute that for the allegations levelled in the
instant FIR, the complainant has already lodged the FIR
No.17/2019 wherein, the appellants were arrested. It is also not
disputed that the FIR is bereft of any allegation to constitute an
offence under the Act of 1989.
Heard. Considered.
Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by
learned counsel for the appellants and the material on record
which reflects that the instant FIR contains the same allegations
which were levelled in the FIR No.17/2019 and this FIR is bereft of
any allegation to constitute an offence under the Act of 1989; but,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this
Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on pre-
arrest bail.
The orders dated 09.05.2022 & 29.04.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II,
Jaipur are quashed and set-aside and these appeals are
[2023:RJ-JP:39512] (4 of 6) [CRLAS-868/2022]
accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-appellants
1.Ram Lakhan Disaniya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Disaniya &
2. Neha Jain D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain shall be
released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond
in the sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with
two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand
Only) each to the 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.
SB Criminal Appeal Nos.793/2022 & 1085/2022:-
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants under
Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015)
(for brevity "the Act of 1989") apprehending their arrest in
connection with F.I.R. No.287/2019 registered at Police Station
Banipark, District Jaipur (West) for the offence (s) under
Section(s) 409, 389, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120, 120-B & 109 IPC &
Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.
Learned counsel for the appellants, inviting attention of this
Court towards the contents of the FIR No.17/2019 dated
02.07.2019 lodged by the respondent No.2/complainant-Dr. Vinod
Bathara alongwith other persons as also the contents of the
[2023:RJ-JP:39512] (5 of 6) [CRLAS-868/2022]
instant FIR No.287/2019 dated 13.09.2019, would submit that for
the same incident, he has lodged two FIRs. She submits that in
the earlier FIR No.17/2019, after their arrest, they have already
been extended benefit of regular bail under Section 439 CrPC. She
submits that the subsequent FIR is abuse of the process of law.
She further submits that the FIR is bereft of any allegation to
constitute an offence under the Act of 1989. She, therefore, prays
for benefit of pre-arrest bail for the appellants.
Although, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant opposed the prayer;
but, could not dispute that for the allegations levelled in the
instant FIR, the complainant has already lodged the FIR
No.17/2019 wherein, the appellants were arrested. It is also not
disputed that the FIR is bereft of any allegation to constitute an
offence under the Act of 1989.
Heard. Considered.
Taking into consideration the contentions advanced by
learned counsel for the appellants and the material on record
which reflects that the instant FIR contains the same allegations
which were levelled in the FIR No.17/2019 and this FIR is bereft of
any allegation to constitute an offence under the Act of 1989; but,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this
Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on pre-
arrest bail.
The orders dated 29.04.2022 & 09.05.2022 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II,
Jaipur are quashed and set-aside and these appeals are
accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-appellants 1.
[2023:RJ-JP:39512] (6 of 6) [CRLAS-868/2022]
Neha Jain D/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Jain & 2. Ram Lakhan
Disaniya S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Disaniya shall be released
on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the
sum of Rs.100,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two
sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only)
each to the 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.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/141-144
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
