This is a second criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application in a case involving offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that despite witness hostility, the gravity of the offence precludes bail release.
The second appeal was dismissed and the appellant was not released on bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Second Appeal No. 340/2021
Dinesh S/o Mahipal, aged about 20 years, Resident Of Village Rambas Jhonpdi, Police Station Sheikhpur, Aheer, District Alwar (Raj) (Presently Accused In Central Jail Alwar)
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Vandana Sharma, Advocate for complainant Mr. M.S. Choudhary, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA
Order
12/07/2021
The second appeal has been filed under Section 14-A S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, he is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.93/2020 registered at Police Station Sheikhpur Aheer, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 304-B of I.P.C. and under Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar, whereby the second bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant. From bare
(2 of 2)
[CRLAS-340/2021]
perusal of the FIR, the appellant is behind the bars since long and the conclusion of trial will take long time. As per PMR, no visible external injury seen all over the body of the deceased. During the course of trial, PW-3 Rajneesh declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances of the case, appeal of the appellant may kindly be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
First criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.10.2020. Appellant is husband of the deceased and he was named in the FIR. So far, during trial three prosecution witnesses have been examined. PW-1 Kamla who is mother of the deceased and also complainant in the case is not a hostile witness. PW-2 Ramlal is also not a hostile witness. During trial, PW-3 Rajneesh is hostile witness who is not a family member of the deceased. Therefore, looking to the above facts and circumstances and gravity of the offence; but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it not proper to release the appellant on bail.
Hence, the second appeal is hereby dismissed.
(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J
Ashish Kumar /5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second bail application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. against the order of rejection should be allowed.
Whether the hostility of witness PW-3 Rajneesh is sufficient to justify releasing the appellant on bail in a case involving grave offences under the S.C./S.T. Act and IPC.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Dinesh S/o Mahipal
State Of Rajasthan
Kamla Wife Of Shri Tulsaram
Chandra Kumar Songara
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
