The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed the s. 14A(2) appeal against rejection of bail in a case for murder and caste atrocity. The court held that last seen evidence negated any case for bail, but reserved liberty to file a fresh application.
Appeal dismissed; liberty granted to file fresh bail application after recording statements.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1245/2022
Mangi Lal S/o Sh. Bhera Ram, Aged About 22 Years, W.no. 1, New, Old 2, Suratgarh, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.). (In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Sriganganagar).
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate |
|---|---|
| assisted byMs. Sampatti Choudhary | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP |
| Mr. Anil Bidan Halu,for complainant. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
16/11/2022
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with CR Case No.23/2020, Police Station Suratgarh City, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act and against the order dated 12.07.2022 passed by learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sri Ganganagar whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that no evidence against the petitioner to connect with this crime. Counsel further submits that only on the basis of last seen evidence, the
(2 of 2)
[CRLAS-1245/2022]
appellant was falsely implicated in this case. Challan of the case has already been presented. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
According to the last seen evidence, the appellant alongwith the deceased, went together and thereafter deceased was died. In these circumstances, no case for grant of appeal is made out. Hence, the instant appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed at this stage.
However, liberty is granted to the appellant to file afresh after recording the statement of Sohanlal and Sanjay Kumar.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
223-Ishan/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant against whom a Special Judge had rejected bail application based on last seen evidence?
Whether the last seen evidence was sufficient to deny benefit of bail despite the appellant being in custody?
Whether the appeal should be decided immediately or remanded for recording of statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C.?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Mangi Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Sohan Lal
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
