Allowed

Anil v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2024CRLAS/959/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST Act against rejection of bail. Noting no injuries were dangerous to life and prolonged custody with a slow trial, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Special Judge's order, and released the four appellants on bail on personal bonds with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appellants ordered released on bail during trial on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, with conditions to furnish bank account details and Aadhar cards; impugned rej

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:30959]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 959/2024

¶4

Anil S/o Surajkaran, aged 33 years

¶5

Sanwriya @ Sanwarlal S/o Surajkaran, aged 28 years

¶6

Jaylal S/o Sh. Ambalal, aged 34 years,

¶7

Dharmraj @ Dharma S/o Ramratan, aged 20 years All residents of Bachhkheda, Police Station Shahpura, District Shahpura. (Lodged in Central Jail Bhilwara)

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶11

Kanhaiya Lal S/o Ramnath, aged 65 years, resident of Bachhkheda, Police Station Shahpura, District Shahpura.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Puri
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
	Mr. Raghuveer Singh Chundawat (R/2).

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶15

Order

¶16

26/07/2024

¶17

Instant Criminal appeal has 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 order dated 25.06.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 175/2024 (CIS No. 138/2024) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No. 130/2024, Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325,

[2024:RJ-JD:30959]

[CRLAS-959/2024]

(2 of 4)

427, 308 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶22

Learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently urged that the appellants are innocent persons and a false case has been foisted against them; that entire allegations so leveled by the police against the appellants are totally false and baseless; that nothing has been recovered from possession of the appellants; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the appellants and alleged crime, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and appellants may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 (complainant) have strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants.

¶24

It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the applicants; that keeping in view the gravity of offences alleged to have been committed by them, they do not deserve any leniency, rather they need to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

[2024:RJ-JD:30959]

[CRLAS-959/2024]

(3 of 4)

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

¶29

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 petitioner cannot be completely overlooked. In the present case, it is prima facie seen that four persons namely Shivraj, Mahendra, Munna Lal and Kanhaiya Lal have received injuries but none of the injuries have been opined to be dangerous to their life. The appellants are in custody since 18.06.2024; 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 application for bail filed on behalf of the appellants cannot be sustained.

¶30

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.06.2024. passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bhilwara in Criminal Misc. Case No. 175/2024 (CIS No. 138/2024) is set aside and it is ordered that the accusedappellants (1) Anil S/o Surajkaran , (2) Sanwriya @ Sanwarlal S/o Surajkaran , (3) Jaylal S/o Ambalal and (4) Dharmraj @ Dharma S/o Ramratan , all arrested in connection with FIR No. 130/2024, Police Station Shahpura, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided each of them furnishes personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:30959]

[CRLAS-959/2024]

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.

¶35

With the abovesaid directions, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶36

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶37

118-Mohan/-

Anil v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Sushil Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Sharif @ Gotiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalam Vs State of Rajasthan

Babudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Richpal @ Nikhil Vs State of Rajasthan