Raju Ram @ Khumma Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Kuldeep Mathur, J

Heard learned counsel representing the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved by the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jaisalmer in Cr. Misc. Case No.507/2023 (Sessions Case No.05/2020) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.138/2019, Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer, for the offences under Sections 397, 394, 302/34, 465, 468 and 120B IPC, Sections 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one Rijhu Ram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., stated that the present appellant caused gunshot injury on the leg of the deceased. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Rijhu Ram (PW-11) recorded before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that Rijhu Ram (PW-11), during his court statements, has not levelled any specific allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased, against the appellant.

Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused persons Anil, Ashok Kumar, Surendra Kumar, Sahil and Bhimsain @ Bhim have already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the case of the present appellant is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons.

Lastly, it was submitted that the appellant is in custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of above co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of above co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 08.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases (Additional Sessions Judge), Jaisalmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Raju Ram @ Khumma Ram S/o Heera Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.138/2019, Police Station Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds 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.