Allowed

Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2024CRLAS/712/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under the SC/ST Act regarding the rejection of a bail application, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, directing the release of the appellants on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

The appellants Chandra Shekhar and Bhagwati Lal were released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26997]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 712/2024

¶4

Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi S/o Sitaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Devid Villa Sindhu Nagar, Vardman Tent Wali Gali, Bhilwara, Thana Kotwali, Dist. Bhilwara (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)

¶5

Bhagwati Lal S/o Baldevi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Haled, Thana Sadar, Dist. Bhilwara. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Sanwarmal S/o Shri Devi Lal Regar, R/o Pandal, Pur Dist. Bhilwara

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Senior Advocate assisted byMs.Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit for the complainant

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

04/07/2024

¶14

This appeal has been filed under section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellants in connection with FIR No.241/2023, Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara for the offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 504, 506, 341, 323, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶15

Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel argued that in the FIR dated 27.10.2023, omnibus allegations were leveled against various persons, including the present appellants and even in the statement of injured persons recorded under section 161 of

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:26997]

[CRLAS-712/2024]

the Code of Criminal Procedure, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellants.

¶20

Inviting Court’s attention towards the injury report, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the injuries suffered by both of them are lacerated wounds and certain abrasion on legs and hands and according to the injury report, no grievous injury has been inflicted by the appellants on the injured persons.

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel submitted that though recovery of baseball racket has been shown from the appellants but, firstly no case under section 307 of the IPC is made out and even if it is presumed to be made out, the appellants cannot be held guilty for offence under section 307 of the IPC as no injury on vital part was inflicted by them.

¶22

It was also submitted that most of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail and the case of the present appellants is not different.

¶23

Both Mr. Bhati, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that recovery of baseball racket has been made from the appellants and also that their criminal antecedents disentitle them from any indulgence, particularly when the appellants are habitual offender and have posed threat to law and order situation in the district.

¶24

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

¶25

It is to be noted that co-accused persons Dharamraj @ Dharma, Mithu Lal, Mahaveer, Vinod and Puranlal have been

[2024:RJ-JD:26997]

[CRLAS-712/2024]

(3 of 4)

enlarged on bail by this Court vide separate orders dated 15.12.2023, 15.12.2023, 15.12.2023, 20.12.2023 and 10.05.2024 respectively. The role of the appellants is also not distinguishable from above referred accused persons, who have been enlarged on bail.

¶30

So far as contention of learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit, learned counsel for the complainant that as many as 6 criminal cases are pending against Bhagwati Lal and 15 cases against Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi are concerned, this Court is of the view that pendency of the cases have a bearing, but ultimately, their case is required to be considered in light of the facts obtaining and their role in the felony.

¶31

That apart, considering the number of cases, the present appellants were not granted indulgence and the case was adjourned on 27.05.2024, while other co-accused persons were bailed out.

¶32

Having regard to what has been noted above and considering that charge-sheet has been filed and the trial of the case is likely to take substantial time, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.

¶33

The impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara is set aside. It is ordered that the accused – appellant No.1 - Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi S/o Sitaram and appellant No.2 - Bhagwati Lal S/o Baldevi arrested in connection with FIR No.241/2023, Police

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:26997]

[CRLAS-712/2024]

Station Pur, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 13. Appellants shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶39

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶40

92-akansha/-

Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar @ David @ Ravi 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

Kirti Tiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Fatan Kha Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sundar Lal Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Snehi Chikitsalaya and Anusandhan Kendra, Bhilwara Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan