Allowed

Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2024CRLAS/141/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a rape case. The court noted a compromise affidavit by the prosecutrix alleging she lodged a false case, one-year delay in the FIR, and exoneration of a co-accused, and granted bail to the accused-appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; impugned order dated 02.01.2024 set aside.

Mohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:4119]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 141/2024

¶4

Mohar Singh S/o Panne Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mayla, P.s. Pallu, Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Silochana W/o Ram Lal Nayak, R/o Mayla, Pallu, Dist. Hanumangarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP Mr. Aditya Singh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶12

Order

¶13

23/01/2024

¶14

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14 A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	256/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Pallu
3.	District	Hanumangarh
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 376(2)(n) and 345(d) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1) (w) and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
5.	Offences added, if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	02.01.2024

[2024:RJ-JD:4119]

[CRLAS-141/2024]

(2 of 3)

It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There is no reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR of one year. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶20

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶21

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. An affidavit is on record revealing that the prosecutrix and the appellant have entered into a compromise wherein it is stated by the prosecutrix that she had lodged a false case against the appellant under influence and that no wrong was committed upon her. Since compromise has been executed between the parties, even if the proceedings continue, there remains nothing substantial in the trial to progress and the trial will come to a standstill. In the light of the same and considering other circumstances that the incident took place one year ago; that the story is built on very flimsy premise that the appellant came and fed namkeen to the prosecutrix, she lost consciousness, thereafter, raped her; and lastly, that she exonerated co-accused Shailendra in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC, this court deems it appropriate

[CRLAS-141/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:4119]

(3 of 3)

to release the appellant on bail. The genuineness of the allegations is a matter to be adjudged after appreciation of evidence during trial and therefore, it is made clear that the above observations shall not influence the trial judge in any manner while presiding over the matter. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the appellant in the present matter.

¶26

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the Learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant -Mohar Singh S/o Panne Singh arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he 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.

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

706-Mamta/-

Mohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohar Singh 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

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Hastimal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalita Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravikant Vs State of Rajasthan