Allowed

Babulal Meena S/O Chotelal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 May 2022CRLAS/48/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Jaipur allowed a criminal appeal against bail granted to an accused in a POAT case. The Court quashed the bail order because the trial court failed to issue a mandatory notice to the victim under Section 15-A(3) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, thereby violating the statutory right to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused Dwarka Prasad Sharma cancelled; directed to surrender to trial court by 17.05.2022; victim directed to appear in person.

Babulal Meena S/O Chotelal Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No.48/2022

¶3

Babulal Meena S/o Chotelal, R/o Biharipur Lalsot, District Dausa

¶4

----Appellant/Complainant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶7

___ Respondent

¶8

Dwarka Prasad Sharma S/o Shyamlal Sharma, R/o Sedulai Colony, At Present R/o Salemabad, Lalsot, PS Lalsot, District Dausa

¶9

----Respondent/Accused

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, Public Prosecutor Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Advocate for the accused-respondent No.2

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA Order

¶12

09/05/2022 :

¶13

Instant appeal under Sub-section (2) of Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as 'the Act of 1989') has been preferred on behalf of the appellant-complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2 – Dwarka Prasad Sharma, under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, in Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail) Application No.154/2021 (Dwarka Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan), vide its impugned order dated 25.10.2021, in F.I.R. No.80/2021 registered at Police Station Lalsot District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 504 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 (1) (s) of the Act of 1989.

¶14

(2 of 4)

¶15

[CRLAS-48/2022]

¶16

During the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hariram Bhambhi Vs. Satyanarayan and another, 2021 Cr.L.R. (SC) 1574, contends that the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1989 were blatantly violated by the Special Court and the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 was passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of Sub-Sections 3 & 5 of Section 15-A of the Act of 1989. Lastly, counsel prays that the present appeal may be allowed, the impugned order be quashed & set aside and the bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2 be cancelled.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellantcomplainant.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No.2 has opposed to allow the appeal for bail cancellation and submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting any interference by this Court.

¶19

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa, as also the material made available on record.

¶20

Sub Sections (3) & (5) of Section 15-A of the Act of 1989 read as under :-

¶21

“(3) A victim or his dependent shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any Court proceeding including any bail proceeding and the Special Public Prosecutor or the State Government shall inform the victim about any proceedings under this Act.

¶22

(5) A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLAS-48/2022]

¶25

connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission or conviction, acquittal or sentencing.”

¶26

In the case of Hariram Bhambhi (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :-

¶27

“17. The finding of the Gujarat High Court that the requirement of issuing notice of a court proceeding to a victim or a dependent under Section 15A (3), in order to provide them an opportunity of being heard, is mandatory, finds echo in multiple High Court decisions including a decision of the Rajasthan High Court. We find ourselves in agreement with the proposition and hold that sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 15A are mandatory in nature.”

¶28

It is true that the bail can only be cancelled in exceptional cases and the present case is indeed an exceptional case. Special Act like the Act of 1989 imposes a legal obligation to hear the ‘victim’ at the time of granting bail and the trial Court has failed to acknowledge the right of the ‘victim’.

¶29

In the present case, the appellant-complainant was not given an opportunity of hearing at the time of granting bail to the accused-respondent No.2, as no notice was issued to the appellantcomplainant under Sub-Section (3) of 15-A of the Act of 1989, and therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and the factors outlined in the case of Hariram Bhambhi (supra) , but without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the present appeal for cancellation of bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the bail granted to the accused-respondent No.2, namely Dwarka Prasad Sharma is, hereby, cancelled. The accused/respondent No.2 - Dwarka Prasad Sharma is directed to surrender himself before the concerned trial Court on 17.05.2022, failing which the trial Court shall proceed in

¶31

(4 of 4)

¶32

[CRLAS-48/2022]

¶33

accordance with law. The appellant-complainant – Babu Lal Meena is also directed to remain present-in-person before the concerned trial Court on that day.

¶34

However, the observations made in this order are for the purpose of deciding the question of bail only and if the accusedrespondent No.2 – Dwarka Prasad Sharma surrenders himself before the trial Court and moves an application for bail, the trial Court is expected to decide the same on merits, as early as possible, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the appellant-complainant, in accordance with law.

¶35

Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court to secure compliance forthwith.

¶36

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J.

¶37

ASHOK/51

Babulal Meena S/O Chotelal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Meena S/O Chotelal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Sharma S/O Pramod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Madan Lal Son of Shri Richpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet S/O Rameshwar Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Samadarlal S/O Jaisaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Omprakash Son of Shri Shyamlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Singh S/O Himmat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan