Allowed

Dharam Raj S/O Harkishan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Oct 2021CRLAS/771/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special criminal appellant challenged the Special Judge's rejection of his bail application in an SC/ST atrocities case. The High Court granted bail, noting the nine-month delay despite service of summons to the injured victim and the non-dangerous nature of the injury.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dated 23.03.2021 was set aside, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 5

Dharam Raj S/O Harkishan Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 771/2021

¶3

Dharam Raj S/o Harkishan, R/o Chhadgav P.s. Keshav Rai Patan Dist. Bundi (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶7

Surendra S/o Radheyshyam Meena, R/o Chadganw, K Patan, Kapren Dist. Bundi

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For State : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

26/10/2021

¶13

The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 23.03.2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi whereby bail application filed by the appellant was rejected.

¶14

F.I.R. No.460/2020 was registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, Bundi, for offence under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 34 of IPC & Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that at the time of rejection of first bail on 04.02.2021, petitioner was permitted to move fresh bail after recording of the statement of injured victim in the Court. It is also contended that a period of more than eight months has lapsed and the injured victim is not turning up. The

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLAS-771/2021]

¶18

order-sheets of the Court below has been placed before the Court which is taken on record. It is further contended that as per the injury report, the injury sustained by the injured was grievous in nature and was not opined as dangerous to life.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellant and taking note of the fact that appellant has remained in custody for a period of about nine months, injured victim is not turning up to give evidence in Court, in spite of service, the injury sustained by the injured is not dangerous to life, hence, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

¶22

The order dated 23.03.2021 is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

¶24

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶25

HEENA/14

Dharam Raj S/O Harkishan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Raj S/O Harkishan v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ram Mala Wife of Om Prakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Avtar Pabdi S/O Ram Kumar Pabdi Vs State

Rinku Choudhary Daughter of Shri Chima Ram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Kumar Son of Late Shri Munshi Ram Tutlani Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramautar S/O Shri Nirbhay, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod S/O Shri Daulatram Vs State of Rajasthan