Allowed

Harvindar @ Papoli Son of Khiladi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2023CRLAS/97/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Acknowledging the frivolous prosecution due to an amicably settled dispute between the parties, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted bail to the appellant on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; the accused is released on bail conditioned on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000.

Harvindar @ Papoli Son of Khiladi Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/006238]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 97/2023

¶4

Harvindar @ Papoli Son Of Khiladi, Resident Of Jugginkapura, Police Station Sadar Karauli District Karauli (Raj)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Mithi Lal Son Of Shri Dharmjeet, Resident Of Gaanvda Gurjar, (Bhamadi), Police Station Sadar Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP Mr. Deepak Sharma, for the complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

10/04/2023 (Amended vide order dated 17.07.2023)

¶14

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant in connection with FIR No.280/2022, Police Station Karauli Sadar, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504, 342 and 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶15

Learned counsel submitted that there was some dispute regarding money transaction between the parties, however, the

[2023/RJJP/006238]

[CRLAS-97/2023]

(2 of 3)

same has been resolved and both the parties have entered into the compromise amicably.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the appellant’s prayer. Learned counsel for the complainant has admitted the fact of compromise arrived at between the parties and also submitted that an affidavit of complainant-Mithi Lal has been placed on record. In the affidavit, the complainant-Mithi Lal admits that there was some dispute regarding money transaction between them and the same has been resolved by way of compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant-Mithi Lal does not want to take any action against the accused-appellant.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at the bar and the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise amicably, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the present appeal of the appellant.

¶22

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Karauli is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioner Harvindar @ Papoli S/o Khiladi , in connection with FIR No.280/2022, registered at Police Station Karauli Sadar, District Karauli, the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJP/006238]

[CRLAS-97/2023]

satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the

¶27

following conditions:-

¶28

that the accused-petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before a police officer as and when required;

¶29

that the accused-petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and

¶30

that the accused-petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶31

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶32

AARZOO ARORA /99

Harvindar @ Papoli Son of Khiladi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harvindar @ Papoli Son of Khiladi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Irfan Khan Son of Allanur Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh S/O Lt. Shri Brijmohan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rekh Singh Son of Shri Ramniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Dushyant Mehta S/O Shri Purshottam Lal Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan

Tufansingh S/O Mansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit S/O Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan