Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/O Late Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:5946) on 5 February, 2024
Author: Bhuwan Goyal
Bench: Bhuwan Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:5946]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2639/2023
Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/o Late Shri Sampat Raj Parashar,
R/o Sevko Ka Bagh Parashar Mohalla, Narwar Police Station
Gegal, Distt. Ajmer
(Accused is in Ajmer Central Jail)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Hariram S/o Narayan Regar, R/o Narwar, Gegal, Distt.
Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Kasliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
Mr. Aayush Agarwal, for respondent
No. 2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 05/02/2024
1. The instant appeal (bail application) has been filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.82/2023 dated 11.05.2023, Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 285, 307 & 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer whereby, bail application preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant has been (Downloaded on 06/02/2024 at 08:43:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:5946] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023] rejected. The charge-sheet in the matter has been filed for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 306, 37, 34 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v)(va) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2- complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that appellant is an innocent person, who was not involved in the alleged incident. The appellant was not present on the place of incident at the relevant time and has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel has also contended that there is no specific allegation of setting the deceased on fire in the F.I.R. against the appellant. The police after investigation has disbelieved so-called dying declaration of deceased Rohit, therefore, same cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel has further contended that witness Surendra Prajapat, who took deceased to the hospital in his van, has stated that on asking father, other members of the family and Rohit about incident, they did not tell anything to him and nor stated about anyone else burning him. Learned counsel has further contended that similarly situated co-accused viz. Bhaskar Vaishnav alias Kuldeep and Tejendra Singh Hada alias Tarun Hada have been released on bail by the trial court. The appellant is in custody since 26.05.2023. The charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take sufficient long time to conclude. Learned counsel has, (Downloaded on 06/02/2024 at 08:43:41 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:5946] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023] therefore, prayed that present appeal may be allowed and the appellant may also be released on bail.
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Irfan @ Naka vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 825-826 of 2022) decided on 23.08.2023 and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Babu and Another vs. State of Karnataka reported in (1998) CriLJ 16.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-complainant have vehemently opposed the appeal. It has been contended by learned Public Prosecutor that from perusal of the dying declaration of the deceased, the prosecution story has been corroborated. He has also contended that from the medical evidence on record, it has been proved that deceased received burn injuries on the back side.
6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through material available on record.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and looking to the custody period of the appellant as also the fact that similarly situated co-accused viz. Bhaskar Vaishnav alias Kuldeep and Tejendra Singh Hada alias Tarun Hada have been released on bail by the trial court, without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
(Downloaded on 06/02/2024 at 08:43:41 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:5946] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2639/2023]
8. Accordingly, instant appeal (bail application) is allowed. The impugned Order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer is set aside. It is ordered that accused-appellant - Rasbihari @ Rasu Parashar S/o Late Shri Sampat Raj Parashar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.82/2023, Police Station Gegal, District Ajmer shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.
(BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER KUMAR/136 (Downloaded on 06/02/2024 at 08:43:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)