Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Devraj @ Debu vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40722) on 24 November, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:40722]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2478/2023
Devraj @ Debu S/o Manphool, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward
No. 15, Bhatta Colony, Hanumangarh Jn. Dist. Hanumangarh
(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Jatin Kumar S/o Rajkumar, R/o Ward No. 17, Bhatta
Colony, Hanumangarh Jn. Dist. Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Khichi
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
appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR
No.690/2023, Police Station Hanumangarh Junction, District
Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 341, 323,
325, 308, 34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 4/25 of the Arms
Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2023 passed
by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Bail
Case No.342/2023, whereby the application under Section
439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.
[2023:RJ-JD:40722] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2478/2023]
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 appellant that the
appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and
he has 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 appellant behind
the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be
granted to the appellant.
4. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. Except the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act, the other
offences bailable. 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 appellant behind the bar looking to the fact that
early culmination of the trial is not a seeming fate. In this
background and considering the totality of the facts and
[2023:RJ-JD:40722] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2478/2023]
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant,
named in the cause title, 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.
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
485-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
