Allowed

Prakash Chaudhary v. State

Rajasthan HC21 Oct 2021CRLAS/966/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Criminal Appeal allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of his bail application. The High Court considered the unexplained 18-day delay in FIR registration and the pendency of a civil dispute, granting bail subject to bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and accused-appellant released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 along with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Prakash Chaudhary Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

...

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 966/2021.

¶4

Dr. Prakash Chaudhary S/o Laburam Chaudhary, aged about 49 years, B/c Sirvi, R/o Riktiya Bheru Chohraha, Bilara, Jodhpur Rural and District Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Jail).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan(Through PP)

¶8

Sh. Rajuram Meghwal S/o Sh. Kaluram Meghwal, B/c Meghwal, R/o Riktiya Bheru Chohraha, Bilara, Jodhpur Rural and District Jodhpur, Permanent Address Mesiya Tehsil Raipur, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	:	Mr. Gajendra Panwar through VC.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi,PP.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶12

Order

¶13

21/10/2021

¶14

The instant appeal haa been filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the accused-appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 361/2021, Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 354, 323, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Cases,

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLAS-966/2021]

¶17

Jodhpur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

¶18

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accusedappellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor stated that the service of the notices has been completed on the respondent No.2 (complainant). However, it is notice that despite of service, nobody is present on behalf of the respondent No.2 (complainant).

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the incident in question has been taken place on 12.08.2021 whereas the First Information Report (FIR) has been filed on 30.08.2021; that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the FIR; that the complainant is the tenant of the appellant’s brother; that a civil dispute regarding partition of the property is pending before the competent Court at Bilara; that for taking undue advantage, the present FIR has been lodged against the appellant on totally false and concocted facts and grounds; and that the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant by allowing his appeal.

¶21

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the appeal & prayer for granting the benefit of bail made on behalf of the accused-appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor stated that in the present case, the appellant-accused

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLAS-966/2021]

¶24

has abused the complainant and earlier one another case has been registered against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 457, 380 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-appellants.

¶25

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly looking to the facts that there is an unexplained delay of 18 days in lodging the First Information Report against the accused-appellant; and that further investigation and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, Dr. Prakash Chaudhary S/o Laburam Chaudhary , arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 361/2021, Police Station Bilara, Jodhpur Rural, District Jodhpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶27

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶28

253-Mohan/-

Prakash Chaudhary v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Chaudhary v. State

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

Savitri @ Samasta Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Raju Panch Devla @ Rajmal Vs State

Tushar Kothari Vs State

Pawan Kumar Vs State

Chhagan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithun Vs State of Rajasthan