Special Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act against bail rejection. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal, holding the appellant unfit for bail without commenting on merits, and directed expedited trial.
Bail denied; appeal rejected; trial to be expedited.
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.
[2023/RJJD/016876]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 74/2023
Arbaz S/o Mohd Mangatu, Aged About 19 Years, Depalsar P.s., Ratangarh Dist. Churu. (Petitioner Is Lodged In Dist. Jail, Churu).
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. |
NL Joshi |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. | Kirti Pareek | |
| Mr. | Abhishek Charan | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Laxman Solanki, PP |
| Mr. | Insar Ali,RPSpresent inperson |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order
23/05/2023
The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.100/2022, Police Station Mahila Police Station, Churu for the offence under Sections 376(2) (n), 366 and 450 of IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, 1989 against the order dated 6.1.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Churu in Cr. (Bail) Application No.9/2023, whereby the bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.c. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the prosecutrix is major and no offence as alleged
[2023/RJJD/016876]
[CRLAS-74/2023]
(2 of 2)
against the appellant has been committed by the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is behind the bars since long. Thus, it is submitted that the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer made by the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix has specifically made allegations of the alleged offence against the appellant and it is also submitted that she is pregnant.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar and after perusing the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. .
Consequently, the instant appeal is rejected.
However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.
The copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court either by FAX or through Email.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
239-CPGoyal/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant who is in custody for offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Whether the present case requires expedited trial.
Whether the appellant is fit for bail considering the nature of the offence and custody.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Arbaz S/o Mohd Mangatu
State of Rajasthan
Smt. Pushpa W/o Sh. Satish Kumar
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
