High CourtsSingle Bench

Jiva Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 30 May 2024 · Citation: (2024) 05 SHI CK 0099

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bipin Chander Negi, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(r), (3)(1)(s), 3(1)(za)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (Main) No. 1049 Of 2024
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

15 paragraphs · 474 words

Bipin Chander Negi, J

1.

Status report received. The same is taken on record. The copy whereof is supplied to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the status report.

3.

The case at hand has been registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant in the case at hand is one Ms. Tanu Jariyal.

4.

From the status report, it is evident that Ms. Tanu Jariyal complainant in the case at hand belongs to “Phalahre” caste. As per the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe orders (amendment Act, 1976) the aforesaid caste does not figure in the category of Scheduled Caste.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that they shall be initiating process for cancellation of the FIR in the case at hand.

6.

The charges against the petitioner are yet to be proved. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Rather, the same would prove prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner.

7.

No criminal history of the petitioner has either been mentioned in the status report or argued by learned Additional Advocate General.

8.

Petitioner is permanent resident of village Munish, P/o Munish Bahli, Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla, H.P. The respondent-State has not expressed any apprehension regarding him fleeing from the course of justice and adversely affecting the trial. In any case, the petitioner can be put to terms for the purposes of safe, secure and unobstructed completion of trial.

9.

Considering the entire facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, I do not find any ground for curtailing the personal liberty of the petitioner, at this stage, by committing him to judicial custody. No fruitful purpose is going to be served by keeping him behind the bars during the pendency of the investigation.

10.

Accordingly, present petition is allowed and petitioner is enlarged on bail in case FIR No.54/2024 dated 11. 05.2024, under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1) (za)) and (3)(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police Station, Rampur, District Shimla Himachal Pradesh. Interim order dated 16. 05.2024, is made absolute, subject to the conditions enumerated, therein.

11.

In case of violation of any of the terms and conditions of the bail, respondent-State shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of the bail. It is made clear that observations made above are only for the purpose of adjudication of instant bail petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.

Learned trial Court shall decide the matter without being influenced by above observations.

12.

With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of.

13.

Downloaded copy of this judgment is valid for compliance.