Allowed

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2024CRLAS/74/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal against a bail rejection under the SC/ST Act. The high court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower order, and granted bail to the appellant due to the prosecutrix's persistent failure to appear for examination and her conduct indicating intentional delay in the trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellant shall be released on bail furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/each.

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:31018]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 74/2024

¶4

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kusharpura, Police Station Masuda, Dist. Ajmer, At Present R/o Int Bhatta, Jojwa, Police Station Bigod, Dist. Bhilwara. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Smt. Dwarki Devi W/o Late Latur Lal, R/o Jojwa, Police Station Bigod, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr.	Rajiv Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr.	S.K. Bhati,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

29/07/2024

¶14

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of the SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.41/2023, registered at Police Station Bigod, Dist. Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 323, 384, 427, 325, 376-D of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

¶15

This Court vide order dated 04.09.2023 while rejecting the criminal appeal moved by the appellant against the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the competent criminal court, granted him

[2024:RJ-JD:31018]

[CRLAS-74/2024]

(2 of 4)

liberty to file a fresh criminal appeal after recording of the statements of the prosecutrix before the competent criminal court.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the notices upon the respondent No.2 have already been served through the concerned S.H.O.

¶21

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

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecutrix, who is a mature married woman has falsely implicated the present appellant in a criminal case; and the appellant is facing incarceration since 11.02.2023. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused persons namely Munna Singh @ Manoj and Babu @ Babu Singh (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 439/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2023.

¶23

Learned counsel further contended that despite making all possible efforts and taking of steps by the competent criminal court for securing the presence of the prosecutrix before the court for recording her statements, the prosecution has failed to produce the prosecutrix. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the conduct of the prosecutrix is thus sufficient to entitle the accused-appellant to be enlarged on bail. Attention of the Court was drawn towards the various order-sheets of the competent criminal court to indicate that the prosecutrix is not appearing before the trial court for getting her testimony recorded despite the fact that summons/bailable warrants have been issued against her from time to time.

[2024:RJ-JD:31018]

[CRLAS-74/2024]

(3 of 4)

Lastly, learned counsel contended that the appellant is in judicial custody since 11.02.2023 and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

¶28

Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the present appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2023.

¶29

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court is prima facie finds that while rejecting the criminal appeal moved on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 31.03.2023 of the competent criminal court, this Court granted him liberty to file a fresh criminal appeal after recording of the statements of the prosecutrix before the competent criminal court. However various order-sheets of the competent criminal court were placed before this Court which clearly indicate that the prosecutrix on 10.08.2023, 06.09.2023, 30.09.2023, 30.10.2023, 28.11.2023, 12.12.2023, 15.01.2024, 07.02.2024, 06.03.2024, 05.04.2024, 03.05.2024, 01.06.2024 11.06.2024 and 08.07.2024 has not turned up before the competent criminal court for crossexamination. This Court also prima facie finds that acts and volition of the prosecurix clearly indicate that she is intentionally delaying the trial against the present appellant and the prosecution has not shown

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:31018]

[CRLAS-74/2024]

any apprehension of the appellant influencing the prosecutrix or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail.

¶34

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant

¶35

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj S/o Jai Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.41/2023, registered at Police Station Bigod, Dist. Bhilwara, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a 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

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶37

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶38

3-divya/-

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prithvi Singh @ Prithvi Raj 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

Bhanwaralal Bugalia Vs Shankarlal

Rakesh Mehandiratta (Arroa) Vs State of Rajasthan

The New Indian Insurance Company Limited Vs Vidhya

Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Manglaram Vs State of Rajasthan