Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Peeru vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:9259) on 14 February, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:9259]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 99/2025
Peeru S/o Chhotu Khan Mansuri, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Sadar Bazar, Ps Pur, Dist. Bhilwara. (Lodged In Bhilwara Jail)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Dimpal Salvi W/o Jagdish Salvi, R/o Kosithal, Raipur Dist.
Bhiwaran, Raj. At Present Chatrawas Ke Pichhe, Purm
Dist. Bhilwara, Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
Mr. Moti Singh for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 14/02/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.210/2024 registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 308(3) & 78(2) of BNS; Section 67A of IT Act; and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2) (va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allegation against the present appellant is that the appellant was blackmailing the prosecutrix from last about 4 to 5 months by threatening her to circulate her obscene morphed photographs on the social media (Downloaded on 15/02/2025 at 06:56:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:9259] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-99/2025] platform. Further, case of the prosecution is that when the prosecutrix did not succumb to the pressure created upon her by the appellant, he circulated her obscene morphed photographs through certain Instagram app accounts. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant is in custody; the investigation against the present appellant has already been completed and challan against him has already been filed before the competent criminal Court; no recovery is due to be made from the present appellant and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.
3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present case sufficient material is available on record to indicate that the appellant had posted the obscene morphed photographs of the prosecutrix with an intention to blackmail her and defame her, on the alleged Instagram app accounts. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the investigation against the appellant has already been completed and no recovery is due to be made from the present appellant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as available on record in entirety and upon a careful consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court is of the (Downloaded on 15/02/2025 at 06:56:37 AM) [2025:RJ-JD:9259] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-99/2025] prima facie finds that there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had committed the alleged crime solely with an intention to cause harm to a member of SC/ST community or with a knowledge that she belonged to SC/ST category. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside particularly since the challan against him has already been filed and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the appellant influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail.
6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Peeru S/o Chhotu Khan Mansuri arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.210/2024 registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a 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.
7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 244-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 15/02/2025 at 06:56:37 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)