Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram Sihag vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:12590) on 15 March, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:12590]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 431/2024
Balram Sihag S/o Ramswaroop Sihag, Aged About 48 Years, R/o
Goluwala Sihagan Hanumangarh. (Presently Accussed In Dist.
Jail, At Hanumangarh)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Raju @ Bhairaram S/o Shri Khetaram, Aged About 35
Years, R/o 23 Jrk, Goluwala, Police Station Goluwala, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 15/03/2024
1. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the victim/ complainant.
2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 76/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Goluwala 3. District Hanumangarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 323, 341 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act (Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:34:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12590] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-431/2024] 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 05.03.2024 order
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. Besides the invocation of Section 3 of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes, the other offence viz., Section 341, 323 & 34 of the IPC are bailable one if the provision of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act would not have attracted then even the Investigating Officer could release the petitioner on bail by virtue of Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. There is a substance in submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the cause of dispute behind the alleged crime was related to a dispute regarding some payment and as such, it is not a case of the prosecution that the victim was beaten (Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:34:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12590] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-431/2024] up solely on the count that he was a member of Scheduled Caste.
7. Under these circumstances, the learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to save the interest of the complainant/victim besides his role to play as a Public Prosecutor. Ample time was given to him and to go through the material, whereafter the arguments were heard. Now, there is no need to inform the victim to participate in the proceeding as doing so would mean in prolonging further detention of the petitioner.
7. A perusal of the Para No.3 of the order under challenge dated 05.03.2024 revealing that crime scene had been captured in a mobile phone and the video shown before the learned trial Court wherein the presence of the appellant was not reflecting. As per Para No.4 of the order under assail, it is revealing that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was due against the accused Dharmveer and the petitioner Balram and which was the sole cause behind the crime. Be that as it may, this Court feels that the offences under Sections 323, 341 & 34 are bailable and invocation of penal provision of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe can be a debatable question, the same can be adjudicated after the entire evidence would be brought on record before the trial Court but as on date, the appellant is behind the bars and there seems no compelling circumstance to allow his further detention.
8. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the (Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:34:24 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:12590] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-431/2024] arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
9. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.03.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Balram Sihag S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sihag, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties 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.
(FARJAND ALI),J 519-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:34:24 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:12590] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-431/2024] (FARJAND ALI),J 1-divya/-
(Downloaded on 18/03/2024 at 08:34:24 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)