High CourtsSingle Bench

Gautam Kumar vs State And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 18 July 2022 · Citation: (2022) 07 RAJ CK 0036

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 3(2)(V), 354A, 354C, 376(2)(N), 450, 506 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 476 Of 2022
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 · 402 words

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the information about pendency of the present criminal appeal has been communicated to the respondent No.2, therefore, service is sufficient. Despite notice, nobody has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.103/2021, Police Station Sayra, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 354-A, 354C, 376(2)(N), 450, 506 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that after rejection of the first bail application of the appellant by this court vide order dated 18.09.2021, the statement of prosecutrix Mst’ H’ has been recorded as PW4 before the learned trial court. He further submits that in the cross examination, PW4 has stated that she had gone with the present appellant to Gujrat and stayed there in a room. In her statement, she stated that near her room, there were other houses located and she used to live alone in the room when the appellant was going to earn his livelihood. The counsel further submits that prosecutrix is a major married lady of 26 years and therefore, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Gautam Kumar @ Gautamlal S/o Ambalal arrested in connection with FIR No.103/2021, Police Station Sayra, Udaipur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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.