Allowed

Deepak v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Mar 2024CRLAS/44/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in FIR involving IPC offences including attempt to murder and SC/ST Act charges. Court found prima facie that specific allegations of causing knife injuries were against co-accused, set aside the rejection order and released appellant on bail with bonds.

What did the court decide?

Appellant released on bail upon personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:10733]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 44/2024

¶4

Deepak S/o Mukesh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Neemach Mata Temple, Dewali, Police Station Amabamata, District Udaipur.

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

Sohan Nath S/o Nathu Nath, R/o Manoharpura, Badegaon, District Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Pushkar Taimni.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mool Singh Bhati,P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶13

Order

¶14

04/03/2024

¶15

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.475/2023, registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307/34 IPC and Sections 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

[2024:RJ-JD:10733]

[CRLAS-44/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the injured namely Sohan Nath and Surendra Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the injured persons in their statements have levelled specific allegation of causing injury upon them with sharp edged weapon (knife) against co-accused Prince @ Rocky. It was submitted that the learned court below has grossly erred in law as well as on facts in declining to release the appellant on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the injured persons in their statements have clearly stated that the appellant was helping the main accused Prince @ Rocky at the time when he inflicted injuries with sharp edged weapon upon the injured persons. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record, after perusal of the statements of injured persons and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court prima facie finds that specific allegation of causing injury upon the injured persons with sharp edged weapon (knife) has been levelled against co-accused Prince @ Rocky. This Court is also of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:10733]

[CRLAS-44/2024]

filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

¶27

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Deepak S/o Mukesh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.475/2023, registered at Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- 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.

¶28

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶29

171-Prashant/-

Deepak v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak 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

Suresh Kathat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajuram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajmal Singh @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs Union of India

Shubham Vs State of Rajasthan