Allowed

Omprakash @ Pintu Son of Bharosilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2024CRLAS/2634/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against the dismissal of bail in an SC/ST Act case. Considering that the victim did not appear and the trial would be lengthy, without adjudicating the merits, the Court deemed it just to grant bail to the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; accused released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Omprakash @ Pintu Son of Bharosilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:51208]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2634/2024

¶4

Omprakash @ Pintu Son Of Bharosilal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Jon Police Station Todabhim District Karauli (Raj) (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail Dausa)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

¶8

Banwari Son of Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Thekda Police Station Mahwa District Dausa (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant	: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent	: Mr. Amit Gupta, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order

¶12

12/12/2024

¶13

As per the information supplied by concerned SHO, Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa, the complainant/victim has already been informed. Despite information, none appears on behalf of the complainant/victim.

¶14

The present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed by the accused-appellant against the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dausa under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.175/2024, Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa for the

[2024:RJ-JP:51208]

[CRLAS-2634/2024]

(2 of 3)

offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of IPC and for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 by which the bail application filed by the accused-appellant has been dismissed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant was arrested on 18.09.2024 and since then, he is behind the bars. Learned counsel also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the appellant and the trial will take long time to conclude.

¶20

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that in the FIR, charge of attempt to commit murder has also been levelled against the accused-appellant, however, only two injuries were found on the person of the injured, there was no intention to kill the injured as only one injury on the head has been found by the blunt weapon, therefore, the accused-appellant may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the accusedappellant's prayer.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused-appellant is behind the bars since 18.09.2024; the trial will take long time to conclude, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow this appeal filed by the accused-appellant.

¶23

[CRLAS-2634/2024]

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:51208]

¶25

Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dausa is set aside. It is ordered that the accused–appellant namely Omprakash @ Pintu S/o Bharosilal, arrested in connection with FIR No.175/2024, Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶26

Accused-appellant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶28

AARZOO ARORA /353

Omprakash @ Pintu Son of Bharosilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash @ Pintu Son of Bharosilal 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

Mustak Mohammad S/O Najar Mohammad, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Ali S/O Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Somdutt S/O Shri Biharilal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rafik S/O Sh. Kamru, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Bona S/O Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan

Rinku @ Bachcha Son of Gajraj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan