Allowed

Amritpal @ Amba v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CRLAS/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court bench of Justice Farjand Ali, hearing criminal appeals under the SC/ST Act, observed that a compromise had been reached between the accused and the complainant who had turned hostile. The court held that the accused deserved bail as the complainant did not wish for further incarceration.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellants to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Amritpal @ Amba Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28976]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 831/2024

¶4

Amritpal @ Amba S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No.04, Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶5

Rajpal @ Raju S/o Badev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.04, Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶6

Baggu Singh S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No.04, Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶7

Navdeep Singh S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No.04, Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Sukhpal Kaur W/o Baltej, R/o Ward No. 04, Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

CONNECTED WITH

¶13

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 619/2024

¶14

Amritpal @ Amba S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶15

Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No.04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶16

Rajpal @ Raju S/o Badev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No.04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶17

Baggu Singh S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶18

Navdeep Singh S/o Jasveer Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶19

----Appellants

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Sukhpal Kaur W/o Baltej, R/o Ward No. 04 Chak, Heerasingh Wala, Police Station and Tehsil Sangriya, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶22

----Respondents

¶23

[2024:RJ-JD:28976]	(2 of 4) [C
For Appellants	: Mr. KuldeepSharma
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. Abhishek Purohit,AGA
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. Ramdev Rajpurohit

¶24

[CRLAS-831/2024]

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶26

Order

¶27

16/07/2024

¶28

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing appeals under Section 14A(2) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the SC/ST Act’) at the instance of accused-appellants. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶29

S. No.	Particular	s of the Case
1.	FIR Number	655/2023.
2.	Concerned Police Station	Sangriya.
3.	District	Hanumangarh.
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	U/Sec. 452, 436, 323, 427, 341, 143 of IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va)of SC/ST Act.
5.	Offences added,if any	--
SBCR	LAS No.831/2024
6. SBCR	Date of passing of impugned order LAS No. 619/2024	13.05.2024.
7.	Date of passing of impugned order	08.04.2024.

¶30

It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-

¶31

[CRLAS-831/2024]

¶32

[2024:RJ-JD:28976] (3 of 4)

¶33

appellants and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶34

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that compromise has been arrived at between the parties and the respondent No.2/complainant has been compensated duly.

¶35

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA opposes the appeals and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant verifies the factum of compromise and submits that respondent No.2/complainant does not wish to further incarceration of the accused appellants.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record, upon consideration of the arguments advanced particularly the fact that the compromise has been entered in between the parties, as a consequence of which the respondent No.2/complainant has been compensated and she does not wish to further incarceration of the petitioner as she has been examined in the trial and she has turned hostile, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 8. Consequently, appeal being SBCRLA No.831/2024 is allowed, whereas appeal being SBCRLA No.619/2024 is allowed to the extent of appellant No.2– Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba only as the said appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn to the extent of appellant No.1– Amritpal

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:28976]

[CRLAS-831/2024]

@ Amba S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba , appellant No.3– Rajpal @ Raju S/o Badev Singh @ Geba , appellant No.4– Baggu Singh S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba and appellant No.5– Navdeep Singh S/o Jasveer Singh vide order dated 23.04.2024.

¶41

The impugned order dated 13.05.2024 passed by Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangar is set aside, whereas the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangar is set aside to the extent of appellant No.2– Kuldeep

¶42

Singh @ Keepa S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba .

¶43

It is ordered that the accused-appellants – Amritpal @ Amba S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Rajpal @ Raju S/o Badev Singh @ Geba, Baggu Singh S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba, Navdeep Singh S/o Jasveer Singh and Kuldeep Singh @ Keepa S/o Baldev Singh @ Geba , arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties 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.

¶44

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶45

Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.41 & 42

Amritpal @ Amba v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritpal @ Amba 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

Kal Singh Damor Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Dewasi Vs State of Rajasthan

Fateh Lal Kumawat Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Amritpal @ Amba Vs State of Rajasthan

Sadul Singh Vs State of Rajasthan