Allowed

Smt. Meena W/O Sh. Vikram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024CRLAS/11/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Criminal Appeal involves the bail of an appellant charged with offences under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower court's order, and granted bail considering the appellant's gender, lack of specific charges, and absence of criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside. The appellant is released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Smt. Meena W/O Sh. Vikram Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 11/2024

¶3

Smt. Meena W/o Sh. Vikram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ibrahimpur, Kemri P.s. Nadoti Distt. Gangapur City (Raj) (Presently In District Jail Gangapur City)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

Kalyan Sahay Meena S/o Sh. Rampal Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Rajvas Sher Singh P.s. Lawan Distt. Dausa (Raj)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hatila
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sanjeev Mahala, PP Mr. Fateh Ram Meena for
	Complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

23/01/2024

¶13

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli (Rajasthan) in Bail Application No.170/2023 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.384/2023 registered at Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 342, 382, 386, 504, 506, 302 and 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under sections 147, 149, 342, 386,

¶14

[CRLAS-11/2024]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

504, 506, 302 and 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that absolutely false case has been registered against the appellant. He further submits that appellant is a female and there is no specific allegation against the appellant. Counsel further submits that according to the prosecution story, deceased entered into the house of Darshan Singh, who is brother-in-law of the appellant and committed rape upon the daughter of Darshan Singh for which, separate FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 452, 376 and 506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act and during investigation, these offences have been found proved against the deceased and two others. Counsel submits that there is no specific allegation against the appellant and only omnibus allegation has been levelled against her. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 15.09.2023. Chargesheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time. Counsel further submits that further custody of the appellant is not warranted for any fruitful purpose.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of bail and submits that when police reached at the place of incident, hindrance was caused by the appellant and others and deceased was not allowed to be taken to the hospital for which separate FIR under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC has also been registered against the appellant and others.

¶19

[CRLAS-11/2024]

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as well as material available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, especially the fact that appellant is a female and no specific allegation has been levelled against the appellant; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I am of the opinion that the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail, in its aforesaid background.

¶23

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli (Rajasthan) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Smt. Meena W/o Sh. Vikram arrested in connection with FIR No. 384/2023 registered at Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.

¶24

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶25

DEEPA RANI-211

Smt. Meena W/O Sh. Vikram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena W/O Sh. Vikram 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

Mahendra Kumar S/O Shri Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Chand Bhawaria S/O Laxman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sagarmal Dhakad S/O Nandram @ Nandlal Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Taj Mohammad S/O Shri Iliyash Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Ramratan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh Dhakad S/O Munim Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan