Allowed

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2024CRLAS/458/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a criminal appeal for anticipatory bail. It held that the FIR did not prima-facie show the offence was committed against a Scheduled Caste or Tribe member, rendering the SC/ST Act inapplicable based on an Apex Court dictum.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment rejected 15.04.2023 set aside. Appellant to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28832]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 458/2023

¶4

Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Phephana, P.S. Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Duni Ram S/o Sh. Sohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No.15, Phephana, P.S. Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	PradeepKumar Shah
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki, PP
	Mr.	Vikas Bishnoi on behalf of
	Mr.	Rakesh Matoria for RespNo.2.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order

¶11

15/07/2024

¶12

Instant Criminal appeal has been preferred to enlarge the appellant on anticipatory bail under Section 14-A(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 and being aggrieved of the order dated 15.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.55/2023 (C.I.S. No.45/2023) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant in connection with FIR No.25/2023, Police Station Phephana, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

[2024:RJ-JD:28832]

[CRLAS-458/2023]

(2 of 3)

Learned Public Prosecutor filed a report of service of notice issued to the private respondent. Service is complete.

¶17

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

¶18

Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, there is no averment in the F.I.R. that offence was committed with complainant considering him as member of SC/ST community, complainant has improved his version in subsequent oral interrogatories made by police officer at the time of lodging of F.I.R. Prima-facie, there was no opportunity or reason for the police officer to make subsequent interrogatories from the complainant since facts of the F.I.R. were itself clear and there were no caste related allegations at the first instances.

¶19

Applying the dictum ruled by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of Prathvi Raj Chouhan vs. Union of India in W.P. (C) No.1015/2018 decided on 10.02.2020, to the instant case, it is prima-facie found that a bare reading of F.I.R., as originally lodged by the complainant, no offence under SC/ST Act is made out and submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be completely overlooked. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves indulgence of anticipatory bail and thus, the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained.

¶20

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 15.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case

[CRLAS-458/2023]

[2024:RJ-JD:28832]

(3 of 3)

No.55/2023 (C.I.S. No.45/2023) is set aside. It is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Kumar in connection with the FIR No.25/2023, Police Station Phephana, District Hanumangarh, the appellant shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions: -

¶25

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

¶26

(ii) that the appellant 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;

¶27

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

¶28

(iv) that the appellant shall abide by all the conditions specified under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the investigating officer as and when called for.

¶29

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶30

119-suraj/-

Vinod Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Vaswani Vs State of Rajasthan

Koushala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan