Allowed

Amit Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2024CRLAS/97/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST Act against rejection of bail application for five appellants held in FIR involving robbery and SC/ST charges. Court found Section 395 IPC prima facie doubtful and attraction of SC/ST provisions debatable; allowed appeal and ordered appellants released on bail on furnishing bonds.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail on furnishing personal bond Rs.50,000/- and two sureties Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:7717]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 97/2024

¶4

Amit Choudhary S/o Shri Moti Ram Jat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur (In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶5

Ashok Sou S/o Shri Om Prakash Jat, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Ps Boranada, District Jodhpur

¶6

Bhura Ram S/o Shri Bhikha Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur (In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶7

Jitendra Sou S/o Shri Badri Narayan Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Police Station Boranada, District Jodhpur (In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶8

Suresh Siran S/o Shri Gopa Ram Jat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Nandwan Police Station Vivek Vihar Jodhpur West (In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶12

Narpat S/o Fusa Ram, B/c Meghwal R/o Matwali Nadi Shivpuri Lohawat Police Station Lohawat District Phalodi

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary

¶15

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, P.P. Ms. Ganga Kumari, for the complainant Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, ACP SC/ST, Cell Commissionerate, Jodhpur

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:7717]

[CRLAS-97/2024]

14/02/2024

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.01/2024 of Police Station Boranada, Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 395, 427 IPC and Section 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.08/2024, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court.

¶23

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Sharma, ACP SC/ST, Cell Commissionerate, Jodhpur is present in person and apprised to this Court that two persons were named in the FIR and name of other persons came into picture in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., therefore, there was no reason to conduct a test identification parade. The explanation furnished by him seems to be convincing.

¶24

Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶26

It seems that due to some confusion or for any other reason only upon noticing suspicious activity of the complainant the

[2024:RJ-JD:7717]

[CRLAS-97/2024]

(3 of 3)

neighbours assembled at a place and man handled him; prima facie, no case under Section 395 of IPC is made out, however, this is a tentative opinion which will have no bearing over the merits of the case. The appellants are in judicial custody and their incarceration is not warranted.

¶31

Except the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act, the other offences bailable. After a perusal of the FIR, I am convinced that it is highly debatable whether the penal provisions of the SC/ST Act would attract or not and the same would be subject-matter of the trial. Thus, it would not be justifiable to keep the appellants behind the bar looking to the fact that early culmination of the trial is not a seeming fate. In this background and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided they furnish 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.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

563-Taruna/-

Amit Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Choudhary 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

Praman @ Pramanaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Teli @ Krishan Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Vs State of Rajasthan

Naru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Vs State of Rajasthan