Allowed

Priyanshu Singh S/O Varun Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2024CRLAS/339/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving violations of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appeal was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail subject to furnishing a bond and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; impugned order set aside; appellant granted bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties.

Priyanshu Singh S/O Varun Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:24817]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 339/2024

¶4

Priyanshu Singh W/o Varun Kumar, R/o Flat No. 1901, Tower CC 01 Supertech Capetown Sector -74, Noida, Uttar Pradesh

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

Jitendra Kumar S/o Kanhiya Lal, R/o S-28, A School Block Sakarpur, New Delhi

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat with Mr. Abhi Goyal
	Mr. Ashish Rohlania
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Atul Sharma, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

24/05/2024

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Session Case No.43/2024 rejecting the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is having apprehension of arrest in connection with FIR No.678/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

[2024:RJ-JP:24817]

[CRLAS-339/2024]

(2 of 3)

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that appellant is not named in FIR. It is submitted that appellant and complainant are unknown to each other. Counsel submits that appellant has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused persons namely- Ankur Pathak and Suresh Pathak who have been granted benefit of regular bail by this court. He further submits that custodial interrogation of the appellant is not required in this matter.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant oppose the prayer of bail and submit that complainant gave money to the aforesaid co-accused persons which was handed over to the appellant and same was invested by her.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, especially the facts that appellant is not named in FIR and she was unknown to the complainant and so also considering the fact that co-accused persons have been granted benefit of regular bail by this court, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to allow the appeal.

¶22

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 31.01.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar is set aside.

[CRLAS-339/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:24817]

(3 of 3)

The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar in FIR No.678/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant – Priyanshu Singh W/o Varun Kumar , she shall be released on bail, provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) that the 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 any police officer, and

¶29

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶30

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶31

DEEPA RANI -59

Priyanshu Singh S/O Varun Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanshu Singh S/O Varun Kumar 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

Dhankad S/O Shri Puran B/C Regar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaidya Janakraj Sankhyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Balvir Singh Tomar S/O Late Shri Hotam Singh Tomar Vs State of Rajasthan

Varun Kumar Son of Sh. Shailendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Narayan S/O Laluram @ Lala Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram S/O Babulal, Vs State of Rajasthan