High CourtsSingle Bench

Bagda Ram vs State

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 5 November 2019 · Citation: (2019) 11 RAJ CK 0006

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vijay Bishnoi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(2)(5), 14A(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 201, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1427 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 470 words

This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 06.9.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal Misc. Case No.NIL/2019 pertaining to Sessions Case No.88/2019 whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been arrested in FIR No.17/2018 of P.S. Sendra, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the appellant, statements of complainant Hanuman Ram and another witness Kachru Ram have been recorded before the trial court as PW-1 and PW-3 respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PW-1 Hanuman Ram in his statements has alleged that he was informed by PW-3 Kachru Ram that the deceased had gone with the appellant and thereafter he was missing whereas PW-3 Kachru Ram in his statement, has specifically stated that he did not inform the complainant PW-1 Hanuman Ram that their brother Badri had gone with the appellant and as such Kachru Ram has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that taking into consideration the above piece of evidence, it is clear that no evidence is available on record to connect the appellant with the commission of crime.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant in this criminal appeal.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the appeal filed by the accused appellant under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act.

Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is allowed and the order dated 06.9.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali in Criminal Misc. Case No.NIL/2019 pertaining to Sessions Case No.88/2019 is set aside. It is directed that appellant - Bagda Ram S/o Harji Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.17/2018 of P.S. Sendra, District Pali provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.