Allowed

Pukh Raj Jajda v. the Union of India

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2022CRLAS/480/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal against the rejection of a bail application in an SC/ST Atrocities case was allowed. The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the release of the appellant on bail with a monetary bond, citing errors in law and facts regarding co-accused status and lack of necessity for detention.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside, and the accused-appellant was directed to be released on personal and surety bonds.

Pukh Raj Jajda Vs the Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 480/2022

¶3

Pukh Raj Jajda S/o Amra Ram Jajda, Aged About 42 Years, resident of Dangawas, P.S. Merta City, Dist. Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Merta).

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union Of India, Through C.B.I. (Spl. P.P.).

¶7

Arjun Ram S/o Ratna Ram, resident of Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Daangawas, Teh. Merta City Dist. Nagaur.

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr.G.R.Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr.Jai Naveen, Adv. Mr.Mahaveer Bhanwariya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya Sr. Adv assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit for CBI Mr.Shrawan Vishnoi, PP Mr. Vishal Sharma, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

13/07/2022

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2015, Police Station Merta City, Distt. Nagaur for the offence under Sections 447, 147, 148/149, 323, 324, 325, 326/149, 307/149, 302/149 of IPC and Sections 3(i)(v), 3(2)(V), 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, against the order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLAS-480/2022]

¶17

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

¶18

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that similarly

¶19

situated co-accused, namely, Ramdev, Baldev, Pappu, Chaturaram and Om Prakash have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the present appellant is similar to those of the coaccused. The material witnesses have been examined before the trial court. The appellant is in judicial custody since 03.12.2019 and continued detention of the appellant is now not warranted for any purpose. The trial of the case will take sufficient long time. Learned counsel further submits that the learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well in declining to release the appellant on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-UOI as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

¶21

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

¶22

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.04.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Pukh Raj Jajda S/o Amra Ram Jajda, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2015, Police Station Merta City, Distt. Nagaur, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLAS-480/2022]

¶25

personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶27

207-NK/-

Pukh Raj Jajda v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pukh Raj Jajda v. the Union of India

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

Banwari Lal Vs State

Sunny Vs State

M/S. Shore Products Limited Vs R.S.I.D.and I.C.Ltd.Riico and Anr.

Shriram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan