Allowed

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2024CRLAS/942/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected criminal appeals, the Rajasthan High Court allowed bail for the appellants, Shekhar and Rahul, who were detained in connection with offences under IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court set aside the Additional Sessions Judge's order rejecting bail applications, noting that injuries sustained by victims were not grievous and indefinite detention was unjustifie

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail pending trial with surety bonds; must furnish bond details, bank account affidavits, and Aadhar copies to ensure penalty recovery if required.

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28311]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 941/2024

¶4

Shekhar S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 20 Years, R/o In Front Of Railway Station, Bhopalsagar, P.S. Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh, Presently At Swaraj Nagar, Street No. 12, Near Water Tank, P.S. Surajpole, Udaipur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Sameer Khan S/o Rafik Khan, R/o Kailash Colony, Gali No.2, Surajpole, District Udaipur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 942/2024

¶11

Rahul S/o Shri Jaswant, Aged About 29 Years, R/o In Front Of Railway Station, Bhopalsagar, P.S. Bhopalsagar, District Chittorgarh, Presently At Swaraj Nagar, Street No.12, Near Water Tank, P.S. Surajpole, Udaipur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

1.	State Of Rajasthan through PP
2.	Sameer Khan S/o Rafik Khan, R/o Kailash Colony, Gali
	No.2,Surajpole,District Udaipur.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Hemank Vaishnav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar,PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶18

Order

¶19

11/07/2024

¶20

Instant Criminal appeals have been preferred to enlarge the appellants on bail under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment act 2015 and being aggrieved of the common order dated 20.06.2024 passed by learned Additional

¶21

Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Case

[2024:RJ-JD:28311]

[CRLAS-941/2024]

(2 of 3)

Nos.127/2024 (qua appellant-Shekhar) and 121/2024 (qua appellant-Rahul) rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants who are in custody in connection with FIR No.213/2024, Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 34 IPC and Sections 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor filed a report of service of notice issued to the private respondent. Despite service of notice, no one is present today on behalf of the private respondent.

¶27

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

¶28

Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants cannot be completely overlooked. In the present case two persons namely Sameer Khan and Sunny Meena have received injuries. After going through the medical record, it is prima-facie found that none of the injury caused to any of the injured is grievous or dangerous to their life. The appellants are in custody since 23.05.2024; that the trial is likely to take its own considerable time and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them in detention for an indefinite period. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the appellants deserve indulgence of bail and thus, the order rejecting the applications for bail filed on behalf of the appellants cannot be sustained.

[CRLAS-941/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:28311]

(3 of 3)

Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The common order dated 20.06.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Case Nos.127/2024 (qua appellant-Shekhar) and 121/2024 (qua appellant-Rahul) is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellants 1. Shekhar S/o Shri Jagdish and 2. Rahul S/o Shri Jaswant arrested in connection with FIR No.213/2024 Police Station Surajpole, District Udaipur shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided each of them furnish 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 and if not required by Jail Authorities in any other case. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release and sureties, on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.

¶33

With the abovesaid directions, the Criminal Appeals are disposed of.

¶34

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶35

59-60-suraj/-

Rahul v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul 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

Ranvir Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Indrajeet Vs State of Rajasthan

Khet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Asha Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Shekhar Vs State of Rajasthan