Rajasthan High Court
Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:5946) on 5 February, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:5946]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2639/2023
Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/o Late Shri Sampat Raj Parashar,
R/o Sevko Ka Bagh Parashar Mohalla, Narwar Police Station
Gegal, Distt. Ajmer
(Accused is in Ajmer Central Jail)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Hariram S/o Narayan Regar, R/o Narwar, Gegal, Distt.
Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
Mr. Aayush Agarwal, for respondent
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL
Order
05/02/2024
1. The instant appeal (bail application) has been filed under
Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in
custody in connection with FIR No.82/2023 dated 11.05.2023,
Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections
341, 323, 285, 307 & 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va)
of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the
Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer whereby, bail application preferred under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant has been
[2024:RJ-JP:5946] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023]
rejected. The charge-sheet in the matter has been filed for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 306, 37, 34 of I.P.C. and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v)(va) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled
Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-
complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that
appellant is an innocent person, who was not involved in the
alleged incident. The appellant was not present on the place of
incident at the relevant time and has been falsely implicated in
this case. Learned counsel has also contended that there is no
specific allegation of setting the deceased on fire in the F.I.R.
against the appellant. The police after investigation has
disbelieved so-called dying declaration of deceased Rohit,
therefore, same cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has
further contended that witness Surendra Prajapat, who took
deceased to the hospital in his van, has stated that on asking
father, other members of the family and Rohit about incident, they
did not tell anything to him and nor stated about anyone else
burning him. Learned counsel has further contended that similarly
situated co-accused viz. Bhaskar Vaishnav alias Kuldeep and
Tejendra Singh Hada alias Tarun Hada have been released on bail
by the trial court. The appellant is in custody since 26.05.2023.
The charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will
take sufficient long time to conclude. Learned counsel has,
[2024:RJ-JP:5946] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023]
therefore, prayed that present appeal may be allowed and the
appellant may also be released on bail.
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Irfan @ Naka vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022) decided
on 23.08.2023 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the
case of Babu and Another vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(1998) CriLJ 16.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the
respondent No. 2-complainant have vehemently opposed the
appeal. It has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that
from perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased, the
prosecution story has been corroborated. He has also contended
that from the medical evidence on record, it has been proved that
deceased received burn injuries on the back side.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at bar and have gone through material available on
record.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and looking to
the custody period of the appellant as also the fact that similarly
situated co-accused viz. Bhaskar Vaishnav alias Kuldeep and
Tejendra Singh Hada alias Tarun Hada have been released on bail
by the trial court, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
[2024:RJ-JP:5946] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023]
8. Accordingly, instant appeal (bail application) is allowed. The
impugned Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge,
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Cases, Ajmer is set aside. It is ordered that accused-appellant -
Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/o Late Shri Sampat Raj
Parashar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.82/2023, Police
Station Gegal, District Ajmer shall be released on bail; provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- 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.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J
INDER KUMAR/136
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
