High CourtsSingle Bench

Jalam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 13 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 RAJ CK 0043

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldeep Mathur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 14A(2) · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 305, 354D, 376(2)(n) · Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 3, 4, 5(1), 6, 11, 12
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 447 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

11 paragraphs · 562 words

Kuldeep Mathur, J

The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jalore in Cr. Case No.47/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.6/2023 registered at Police Station Sayala, District Jalore, for offences under Sections 305, 354-D, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sections 3/4, 5(1)/6, 11/12 of POCSO Act, has been rejected.

As per prosecution story, on 9.1.2023 deceased Mst.’C’ committed suicide by hanging herself. In the FIR, it was alleged against the appellant that deceased was subjected to sexual assault just before her death.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet dated 3.4.2023 filed by the investigating agency before competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that investigating agency after making thorough investigation into the alleged incident has come to the conclusion that the deceased has committed suicide. The investigating agency has also found that present appellant and deceased were having consensual relationship and were in constant touch with each other. However, when the appellant did not accede to the demand of the deceased to meet her on 9.1.2023, she being fed up with the behaviour of the appellant, ended her life by hanging. Learned counsel submitted that assuming that the deceased was fed up with the behaviour/treatment given to her by the present appellant, then also the appellant can in no way be held guilty of the abetment of suicide.

Learned counsel submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, allegation of abetment of suicide cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Accordingly, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is allowed. The order dated 15.4.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act, Jalore in Cr. Case No.47/2023 is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant- Jalam Singh S/o Sh. Himmat Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.6/2023 registered at Police Station Sayala, District Jalore, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the instant appeal. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.