Rajasthan High Court
Yogendra Singh S/O Hanuman Singh ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:5652) on 2 February, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:5652]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3275/2023
Yogendra Singh S/o Hanuman Singh Chauhan, Aged About 34
Years, R/o House No. 21, Shrinath Colony Airport Ke Pass Ps
Sanganer Jaipur (Presently Accused Appellant Is Confined At
Central Jail Jaipur)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Jagdish Narayan Meena S/o Magilal Meena, R/o 38, Gokul
Vihar, Budhsinghpura Sanganer Jaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyam Khandelwal, through VC
Mr. Parth Sharma on behalf of
Mr. Sudhir Jain, PP, through VC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Judgment
02/02/2024
1. Heard the parties.
2. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is against refusal of grant of
regular bail in FIR No.305/2023 registered with Police Station
Sanganer, District Jaipur City (East) for offence under Section 364
of IPC and chargesheet has been submitted for offences under
Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 34 and 120-B of IPC and 3(2) (v) of the
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. The FIR of kidnapping for ransom is against unknown. Later
on, dead body of victim Hanuman was found.
[2024:RJ-JP:5652] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-3275/2023]
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant
had no motive to commit the crime and very weak evidence is
there of "last seen" because the witness of last seen says that the
miscreant was aged about 35 years, whereas, arrest memo on
Page No.72 reveals that appellant's age has been assessed as 25
years. Moreover, some other co-accused Diwakar and others have
already been allowed bail by this Court vide order dated
19.10.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.2711/2023
and other connected appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for
bail on the ground that in the order granting bail to Diwakar, it has
wrongly been recorded that murder was committed causing injury
with a hard substance, whereas, it was a case of asphyxial death.
However, learned counsel does not dispute that there is no direct
evidence against the appellant.
6. Considering the facts aforesaid, there is no need for further
detention of the appellant.
7. Accordingly, order dated 22.08.2023 passed by the learned
Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jaipur is
set-aside and this appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed
that the above named accused-appellant be released on bail in the
aforesaid FIR, if he is not wanted in any other case, provided that
he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.25,000/- with two sureties of
like amount to the satisfaction of the lear ned trial court with
following conditions:-
(i) the appellant shall fully co-operate in the trial, failing which,
the trial judge would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the
appellant.
[2024:RJ-JP:5652] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-3275/2023]
(ii) the appellant shall not leave the Country without permission of
the Court otherwise it would amount to disobedience of the order
of this Court and would amount for cancellation of bail.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
29-Mrityunjay Singh Rathore
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
