High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagdish Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 20 November 2023 · Citation: (2023) 11 RAJ CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Farjand Ali, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2237 Of 2023
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

28 paragraphs · 393 words

Farjand Ali, J

1.

Despite service, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2/ victim/complainant.

2.

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

S.No

Particulars of the Case

1

FIR Number

275/2023

2

Concerned Police Station

Pindwara

3

District

Sirohi

4

Offences alleged in the FIR

Sections 363, 366, 376 and 34 of IPC

5

Offences added, if any

Section 366 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

6

Date of passing of impugned order

04.10.2023

3.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant.

4.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6.

A perusal of the impugned order is revealing that principally the allegations are against the accused Arjun S/o Ramaram and no specific and overt act has been attributed to the petitioner. Thus, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that trial would take a long time to conclude, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserve to be enlarged on bail.

7.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.10.2023 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Cases, Sirohi in Criminal Misc. Case No.583/2023 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes 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.