High CourtsSingle Bench

Subhash Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 19 November 2020 · Citation: (2020) 11 RAJ CK 0054

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Scheduled Castes And Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v), 14A · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 328, 376 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 1622 Of 2020
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

20 paragraphs · 436 words

The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Case/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection

with FIR No.267/2020 registered at Police Station Sodala, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence under Section(s) 376 I.P.C. & under Section(s)

3(1)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and later on for the offence under Section(s)

376 & 328 of I.P.C. and under Section(s) 3(1)(w)(ii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He submitted that there are material

contradictions in the contents of FIR lodged by the prosecutrix herself qua her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Drawing attention of

this Court towards the statements of the prosecution witnesses namely Nitin Agarwal, Kajal Agarwal and Harishankar Agarwal recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecutrix, who is married and aged 35 years, was not subjected to any rape

by the appellant. He submitted that the appellant is in custody since 04.09.2020, charge sheet has already been filed, trial of the case will take time, he

has no criminal antecedents of similar nature and prays for release of the appellant on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there are grave allegations against the appellant of

subjecting the prosecutrix to rape and hence, the appellant does not deserve indulgence of bail.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature of allegations against the appellant, his

length of custody; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.

The order dated 22.10.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan-1 is quashed and set-

aside and this appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused appellant Subhash Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal shall be released on

 bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

(Rupees Fivty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any

Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.