Allowed

Sumit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2024CRLAS/980/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an appeal against bail rejection in a caste atrocity case involving murder and other IPC offences. The court noted that key prosecution witnesses, including the deceased's brother and injured person, turned hostile, leaving no evidence against the appellants. Bail was granted subject to satisfying bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellants released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each, with conditions to submit bank account details and Aadhaar cards.

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 980/2024

¶3

Sumit Kumar S/o Ram Mehar, aged 30 years, resident of Nagura, P.S. Aleva, Tehsil and District Jind (Haryana)

¶4

Sanjay Kumar S/o Hawa Singh, aged 30 years, resident of Devsar, P.S. Badhada, Tehsil and District Bhiwani (Haryana).

¶5

Govind S/o Ramswaroop, aged 21 years, resident of Kheri Jalav, P.S. Narnod, Tehsil Narnod, District Hissar (Haryana).

¶6

Bharat Singh S/o Kushal Singh, aged 23 years, resident of Bodhera, P.S. Bhanipura, District Churu. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Churu)

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶10

Ganga Ram S/o Shri Bhanwarlal, resident of Ratusar, P.S. Bhanipura, District Churu.

¶11

Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.	Kailash Chandra Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki, PP.
	Mr.	Ravindra Singh(R/2)

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶14

Order

¶15

09/07/2024

¶16

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 31.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST

¶17

[CRLAS-980/2024]

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

(Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No. 211/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No. 253/2023, Police Station Bhanpura, District Churu, for offences under Sections 302, 323, 341, 325, 447, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(2)(V), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶20

Learned counsel representing the appellants vehemently urged that the appellants are innocent person and a false case has been foisted against them; that entire allegations so leveled by the Police against the appellants are is totally false and baseless; 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.

¶21

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants.

¶22

It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the appellants; 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,

¶23

[CRLAS-980/2024]

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

¶26

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

¶27

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 statements of all the material witnesses have been recorded during the trial. Deceased was Kanhaiya Lal and Ganga Ram was an eye-witness and injured person in the alleged incident. Ganga Ram (PW-1) has deposed nothing against the present appellants and has turned hostile and he did not depose anything against the appellants in respect of his injuries. Seema Devi (PW-2), Krishan Kumar @ Kishan Kumar (PW-3), another eye-witnesses, have also been turned hostile. Another eye-witness namely Suresh Kumar has not been examined by the prosecution and recording of his statement was sought to be dispensed with by the prosecution. As per the case of the prosecution, four persons, who were working as Guard at the place of occurrence have also been turned hostile. They are namely, Parvat Singh (PW-4), Lal Chand (PW16), Purna Ram (PW-17). Evidence of the witness Adu Ram was sought to be dispensed with by the prosecution.

¶28

In that view of the matter, when the brother of the deceased and injured himself has not supported the case of the

¶29

[CRLAS-980/2024]

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

prosecution, remaining all the witnesses have already been declared hostile and nothing has been deposed by them against the present appellants. Therefore, in the considered view of the Court, the appellants have availed themselves substantial grounds so as to question the case of the prosecution. The appellants are in custody since 29.12.2023; that the bail rejection order goes to show that appellants are not involved in any other criminal case; 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.

¶32

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 31.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Churu is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Sumit Kumar S/o Ram Mehar , (2) Sanjay Kumar S/o Hawa Singh , (3) Govind S/o Ramswaroop and (4) Bharat Singh S/o Kushal Singh , arrested in connection with FIR No. 253/2023, Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu, 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 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

¶33

[CRLAS-980/2024]

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

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.

¶36

With the above-said directions, the instant Criminal Appeal is disposed of.

¶37

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶38

77-Mohan/-

Sumit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar 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

Bhagirath Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics Neemach

Manohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Umesh Kumar Tambi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganga Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Swaroopi Vs State of Rajasthan