Rajasthan High Court
Ritesh S/O Surendra Nuniya vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 9 October, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:27890]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2799/2023
Ritesh S/o Surendra Nuniya, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nuniya
Gothda Police Station Bagar District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ( At
Present Confined In Jail Jhunjhunu ).
----Accused-Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
Respondent
2. Hariram S/o Govindram, R/o Bakhatawarpura Bagar
District Jhunjhunu (Raj).
----Complainant/Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Judgment / Order
09/10/2023
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in
custody in connection with FIR No.198/2023 registered at Police
Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections
143, 341, 323, 327, 395 & 365 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) &
3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He further
submits that co-accused Deepak has been extended benefit of bail
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and case of the present
appellant is also on similar footing. He submits that the appellant
[2023:RJ-JP:27890] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2799/2023]
is in custody since 20.08.2023 and his further custody is not
warranted for any fruitful purpose. There are no criminal
antecedents of the appellant.
3. Per contra, learned State-counsel has opposed the bail
application. He further submits that the complainant has duly
been informed about hearing of this bail application. He has placed
on record copy of report of service of notice upon the complainant
which is taken on record.
4. Despite service, none has appeared on behalf of the
complainant to oppose the bail application.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
State-counsel. Perused the material available on record. They
submit that the appellant is named in the FIR and thus, benefit of
bail should not be granted to the appellant.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances;
considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both
the parties and the fact that co-accused person has already been
granted benefit of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, period
of custody and absence of criminal antecedents, but without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court
deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Jhnujhunu is set aside. It is
ordered that the accused-appellant-Ritesh S/o Surendra
Nuniya arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be
released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he/she
[2023:RJ-JP:27890] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2799/2023]
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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Manish/157
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
