Allowed

Ramrakh Mundel v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2024CRLAS/57/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against rejection of bail in SC/ST atrocity case involving seven-year incarceration. Court allowed appeal, set aside impugned order and granted four-month interim bail with bonds, directing expeditious trial.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; granted four months interim bail on personal bond of ₹1,00,000 and two surety bonds of ₹50,000 each; directed expeditious trial.

Ramrakh Mundel Vs Union of India — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:18261]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 57/2023

¶4

Ramrakh Mundel S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Mundel, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dangawas P.s. Merta City, Dist. Nagaur, Raj. (Presently Confined To Sub-Jail, Merta, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.)).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through C.B.I., Special PP.

¶8

Arjun Ram S/o Ratna Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Dangawas, P.s. Merta City, Dist. Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Devendra Mahalana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, DSG Mr. Vishal Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶12

Order

¶13

25/04/2024

¶14

The appellant has been arrested in connection with FIR No.168/2015 registered at Police Station Merta, Dist. Nagaur for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 147, 148/149, 323, 354, 427, 324, 325, 326/149, 307/149, 302/149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v), 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is behind the bars for about seven years and although the prosecution witnesses have been examined but the trial is still at the stage of examination of defence witnesses. It is submitted that similarly situated co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and recently one of the co-accused has been granted interim bail

[2024:RJ-JD:18261]

[CRLAS-57/2023]

(2 of 3)

by the Hon’ble Apex Court for a period of six months during pendency of trial, in the case of Sugna Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9540/2023) dated 26.02.2024. Since the trial court is likely to take some more time, therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused appellant.

¶20

Learned Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant and submits that there is no change in circumstance so as to grant benefit of bail to the appellant

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material on record.

¶22

It is not disputed that till date, the appellant has suffered incarceration of about seven years since his arrest in the case. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed that the prosecution witnesses have been examined and now the trial is at the stage of examination of defence witnesses. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances so also the fact that some of the co-accused and recently one of the co-accused Sugna Ram has been granted benefit of bail pending trial, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to benefit of interim bail for a period of four months, during pendency of the trial.

¶23

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Ramrakh Mundel S/o Sh. Sohan Lal Mundel arrested in connection with FIR No. No.168/2015 registered at Police Station Merta, Dist. Nagaur shall be released

[2024:RJ-JD:18261]

[CRLAS-57/2023]

(3 of 3)

on bail for a period of four months from the date of his release; 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

The trial court is directed to conduct day to day trial and conclude the trial expeditiously, within a period of four months. It will be open to the trial court to extent the interim bail or grant regular bail to the appellant, during pendency of trial, on an application being filed by the appellant.

¶29

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶30

95-GKaviya/-

Ramrakh Mundel v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramrakh Mundel v. Union of India

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

Rajkumar Vs Naresh Sharma

Haridas Vs State

Abdul Razak Vs State

Rama Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Kamediya Vs Thi Union of India

Kumbha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan