Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Akeb Javed vs State on 19 November, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 866/2020
1. Akeb Javed S/o Shri Rashid Khan, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Sarada Mohalla , Risala , P.s. Sarada , Distt. Udaipur
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
2. Sharif Khan S/o Shri Bashir Khan, Aged About 50 Years,
R/o Sarada Mohalla , Risala , P.s. Sarada , Distt. Udaipur
(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Banshi Lal, R/o Nathara ,
Fala Mandali , Sarada , Udaipur
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Sikander Khan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vikram Sharma, PP.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 19/11/2020 In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.
This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') has been filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 17.9.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal (Downloaded on 21/11/2020 at 08:25:08 PM) (2 of 4) [CRLAS-866/2020] Misc. (Bail) Case No.137/2020 (CIS No.109/2020) whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellants.
The appellants have been arrested in connection with FIR No.69/2020 of Police Station Sarada, District Udaipur for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 341 of IPC and Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn attention of this Court to the statement of injured eye witness Ram Chandra who has deposed that on Kejad Talab Pal, they were catching fish when the accused party came in and started abusing them and refrained them from catching fish at this place by putting net. Catching of fish by net became bone of contention between both the parties and when the altercation increased, the accused persons called other persons also to attack the complainant party. He submits that the main allegation which is consistently there is that Mecca took out knife from his pocket and stabbed Mukesh repeatedly while the altercation continued. At this juncture when Mukesh was being stabbed by Mecca, he was held by Zafar and Akeel. He further submits that most of the injuries are simple in nature and the injuries which have caused the death of Mukesh are directly attributable to Mecca who caused the stabbed wounds while Zafar and Akeel held Mukesh to pin him at the spot. He further submits that the statements of Ram Chandra, Bherulal and Rajendra, who are injured eye witnesses, are consistent in the aforesaid version.
(Downloaded on 21/11/2020 at 08:25:08 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLAS-866/2020] Learned P.P. vehemently opposes the appeal but is not in a position to deny that the aforesaid three injured eye witnesses were consistent that the stab wound has been caused by Mecca while being assisted by Zafar and Akeel. Learned P.P. also submits that it was a dispute which arose out of net of fish being put by the complainant party and being opposed by the accused party and that is how a small dispute converted into serious offence.
This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the statements rendered by the aforesaid injured eye witnesses finds that there is consistency that the deceased Mukesh was killed by Mecca while Zafar and Akeel held Mukesh. Rest of the persons have been attributed with the altercation but the injury report reflects that other injuries were simple in nature. With such specific attribution by the injured eye witnesses of the complainant party and while taking into account the fact that there was no previous animosity or any intention to commit crime but it was a dispute which arose on the spot due to fishing rights on a particular lake. The complainant party had put their fish net and the accused party was opposing the fishing by the complainant party. The charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioners are not the principal accused who are Mecca, Zafar and Akeel. Thus, this Court deems it appropriate that it is not a fit case where the custody of the present appellants be continued any longer.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the appeal (Downloaded on 21/11/2020 at 08:25:08 PM) (4 of 4) [CRLAS-866/2020] filed by the accused-appellants under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act.
Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is allowed and the order dated 17.9.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is directed that appellants (1) Akeb Javed S/o Shri Rashid Khan and (2) Sharif Khan S/o Shri Bashir Khan shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.69/2020 of Police Station Sarada, District Udaipur provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 133-SPhophaliya/-
(Downloaded on 21/11/2020 at 08:25:08 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)