Allowed

Jhabarmal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC29 Sept 2016CRLA/1051/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the High Court set aside the trial court's bail rejection and granted bail to three appellants accused in an FIR related to caste atrocities, directing them to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

Jhabarmal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

O R D E R

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1051/2016

¶4

Jhabarmal S/o Baldev aged 58 years.

¶5

Ramavatar S/o Ghasi @ Gheesalal aged 30 years.

¶6

Shivjiram @ Shivdayal S/o Shimbhudayal aged 34 years.

¶7

All by caste Brahmin, R/o Village Bishanpura Charanwas, P.S. Samod, Distt. Jaipur.

¶8

(At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶9

...Accused-Appellants.

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan through the P.P.

¶12

...Respondent. DATE OF ORDER ::::: 29/09/2016

¶13

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶14

Mr. Nirmal Kumar Goyal, for the Appellants. Mr. R.S. Sekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶15

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 26/2016 was registered at P.S. Sadar Samod Jaipur for the offences mentioned therein against the accused appellants. During the course of investigation, the accused appellants were arrested. Thereafter they moved the bail application before the trial court, who vide impugned order dismissed the same. Hence this appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants are in possession of the land in question since the year 1960, they have been falsely implicated in this case. They have nothing to do with the alleged crime, there is no case made out against the appellants. It has also been contended that the accused appellants are in judicial lockup since long and the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the

¶18

accused appellants should be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has opposed the appeal.

¶20

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to release the appellants on bail.

¶21

Therefore, this appeal is allowed and it is directed that accused appellants (1) Jhabarmal S/o Baldev, (2) Ramavatar S/o Ghasi @ Gheesalal and (3) Shivjiram @ Shivdayal shall be released on bail in connection with aforementioned FIR provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶23

Sandeep/Manisha/-222

Jhabarmal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jhabarmal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State and Another Vs Vimla and Another

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Islam Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

R S R T C Vs Santra Devi and Ors.

Vandita Chaudhary Vs State Medical Education andORS

Dimpi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp