Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Krishna Kumar @ Bharatraj vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40710) on 24 November, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:40710]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2330/2023
1. Krishna Kumar @ Bharatraj S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o- Sirsala, P.s. Dudhwakhara, Tehsil
And District Churu (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District
Jail, Churu).
2. Subhash Chandra S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o- Sirsala, P.s. Dudhwakhara, Tehsil And District Churu
(Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Churu).
3. Anand Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o- Sirsala, P.s. Dudhwakhara, Tehsil And District Churu
(Raj.). (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Churu).
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sangeeta W/o Ranjeet, Aged About 35 Years, R/o-
Sirsala, P.s. Dudhwakhara, Tehsil And District Churu
(Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Swaroop Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtyar Khan, PP
None present for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
24/11/2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2)
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the
appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR
No.72/2023, Police Station Mahila Thana, District Churu for
the offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354A and 354B
of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order
[2023:RJ-JD:40710] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2330/2023]
dated 09.10.2023, whereby the application under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.
2. Despite intimation to the victim/complainant of the case
regarding hearing of the bail plea, no one is present on her
behalf.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the
appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case
and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence.
Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellants
behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail
may be granted to the appellants.
4. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. Except the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act, the other
offences are triable by a Court of Magistrate. After a perusal
of the FIR, I am convinced that it is highly debatable whether
the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act would attract or not
and the same would be subject-matter of the trial. Thus, it
would not be justifiable to keep the appellants behind the bar
looking to the fact that early culmination of the trial is not a
[2023:RJ-JD:40710] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2330/2023]
seeming fate. In this background and considering the
totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court
is of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be enlarged
on bail.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 09.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Criminal Misc. Bail
Case No.495/2023 is set aside. It is ordered that the
accused-appellants, named in the cause title, arrested in
connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not
wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a
personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.
25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court
with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates
of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
484-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
