Allowed

Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 May 2024CRLAS/471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act against a bail rejection, the High Court allowed the appeals after finding prosecution witnesses hostile and no fear of flight, ordering the accused released on bail pending trial.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting bail was set aside and the appellants were ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial.

Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23649]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 471/2024

¶4

Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Sonu Police Station Ramgarh Dist Jaisalmer (Presently Lodged At Jaisalmer Jail)

¶5

Raghuveer Singh @ Raghunath Singh S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Sonu Police Station Ramgarh Dist Jaisalmer (Presently Lodged At Jaisalmer Jail)

¶6

Jaipal Singh @ Jaideep Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sonu Police Station Ramgarh Dist Jaisalmer (Presently Lodged At Jaisalmer Jail)

¶7

Chutra Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Sonu Police Station Ramgarh Dist Jaisalmer (Presently Lodged At Jaisalmer Jail)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶11

Prem Kumar S/o Bhera Ram, R/o Raidhan Bheel Ki Dhani Ramgarh Ps Ramgarh District Jaisalmer

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Gaurav Kansara
	Mr.	RagurajSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mohd. Javed Gauri,PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶15

Order

¶16

23/05/2024

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶18

The instant appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of

[2024:RJ-JD:23649]

[CRLAS-471/2024]

(2 of 4)

Atrocities) Act being aggrieved by the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaisalmer Bail Application No.85/2024 (in relation to sessions case No.118/2023) whereby the learned Special judge, rejected the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants who are in custody in connection with FIR No.78/2023, lodged at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, for the offences under Sections 504, 506 and 302/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)2(va) of the SC/ST Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the allegation against the present appellants is of brutally beating the deceased – Shiva Deshmukh with kicks and fist.

¶24

Drawing attention of this courts towards the statements of the eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Jitusingh (PW-1), Premkumar (PW-2), Fakiraram (PW-3) and Krishnaram (PW-4), learned counsel further submitted that all the eye witnesses during their courts statements have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. Learned counsel also submitted that other material prosecution witnesses during their courts statement have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody since 08.08.2023 and trial of the case is likely to take time and therefore, the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellants. However, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in view of the fact that material prosecution witnesses during their court

[2024:RJ-JD:23649]

[CRLAS-471/2024]

(3 of 4)

statements have not supported the prosecution’s story and have turned hostile, therefore, he has no objection in case the appellants are enlarged on bail.

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the statements of eye witnesses of the incident recorded before the competent criminal court this court prima facie finds that material prosecution witnesses during their court statements have not supported the prosecution’s story and have turned hostile; the appellants are in judicial custody since 08.08.2023 and till date out of 21 cited witnesses, statements of only 9 witnesses have been recorded before the competent criminal court. This Court also prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of appellants influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice in case, they are enlarged on bail.

¶31

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail.

¶32

Consequently, these appeals are allowed. The order dated 14.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaisalmer, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav S/o Shri Babu Singh, (2) Raghuveer Singh @ Raghunath Singh S/o Shri Kalyan Singh, (3) Jaipal Singh @ Jaideep Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh and (4) Chutra Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, arrested in connection with FIR No.78/2023, lodged at Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided each of them furnishes

¶33

(4 of 4) [CRLAS-471/2024]

¶34

[2024:RJ-JD:23649]

¶35

personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds 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.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

72-Hanuman/-

Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohitash Singh @ Rohitashav 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

Ankit Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Kanwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Badrilal Vs State

Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Chand Singh Vs State of Rajasthan