High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

Sohan S/o Shri Sayar vs The State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 13 October 2017 · Citation: (2017) 10 RAJ CK 0010

HON’BLE JUDGES
P.K. Lohra
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=1767>Indian Penal Code, 1860</a>, <a href=1767-324>Section 324</a>, <a href=1767-323>Section 323</a>, <a href=1767-149>Section 149</a>, <a href=1767-427>Section 427</a>, <a href=1767-392>Section 392</a>, <a href=1767-143>Section 143</a>, <a hr
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
1341 of 2017
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

41 paragraphs · 392 words
1.

Accused-appellant has laid this appeal under Section 14A(2)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ''Act of 1989'') to assail impugned

order dated 28.08.2017 passed by Special Court, SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (for short, ''learned trial

Court''). By the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected

the bail application of appellant in respect of FIR No.36/2017 of

Police Station Sayra, District Udaipur for offences under Sections

143, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 392, 308 IPC and Section 4 / 25 of

the Arms Act.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has

been falsely implicated in the matter and the allegations contained in the FIR are inherently improbable. Learned counsel for the

appellant further submits that co-accused Kailash, Shravan,

Mukesh, Govind and Suresh have been enlarged on bail while

considering their bail application No.5445/2017 vide order dated

22.06.2017 and Purna Shaker and Govind have been enlarged on

bail while considering their bail application No.4652/2017 vide

order dated 01.06.2017 and the case of present petitioner is not

distinguishable from the co-accused. Lastly, learned counsel has

submitted that all these aspects have not at all been examined by

the learned trial Court while rejecting the bail application of

appellant.

3.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and

submits that looking to the gravity and magnitude of offences

attributed to the appellant, no interference with the impugned

order is warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that

the learned trial Court, in its discretion, has declined the prayer

for bail to the appellant which is not liable to be tinkered with in

exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into

account all the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel

persuaded to set aside the impugned order.

5.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the impugned

order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered

that accused-appellant, Sohan S/o Shri Sayar, arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.36/2017 Police Station Sayra, District

Udaipur, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal

bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to

the satisfaction of 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.