Ajay Singh @ Goli @ Arvind vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

This appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the appellant in connection with FIR No.250/2023 registered at Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 341, 323, 302, 201, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of the appellant is identical to the case of co-accused Preetam Singh, whose appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2388/2023) has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2024.

Learned Public Prosecutor was neither in a position to dispute the aforesaid position nor was he in a position to distinguish the appellant’s case from that of co-accused – Preetam Singh.

In the case of Preetam Singh (supra), this Court has observed thus:

“2. Mr. Sodha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that statement of co-accused Narayanlal under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 14.10.2023 and he did not utter even a single word which showed the involvement of the present appellant.

Learned counsel submitted that as on the date of arrest, there was no incriminating material with the investigating officer to arrest the present appellant. It was argued that the arrest of the present appellant is thus illegal and arbitrary and hence, any information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery of the corpse and any other recovery said to have been made at appellant’s instance is also unlawful and inadmissible. Learned counsel, thus, prayed that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor and the investigating officer present in the Court, could not satisfy the Court as to what was the material with the investigating officer to have arrested the present appellant on 15.10.2023.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-complainant opposed the bail application by contending that CCTV footage were obtained in which 4 persons are seen.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is pertinent to note that CCTV footage too was obtained, seen and analysed by the investigating officer on 18.10.2023, as is evident from page No.120. As such, it is clear that on 15.10.2023, there was no material to form belief or even suspicion that the appellant was in any manner involved in the felony.

The arrest of the appellant has been shown at Gangapur, Bhilwara and no reason in the charge-sheet has been given as to what was the incriminating substance or credible information or reasonable suspicion on the basis of which, the appellant was arrested on 15.10.2023. Clearly, the arrest has been made by the investigating officer in violation of mandate of Section 41 (1)(ba) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the opinion of this Court, the question as to whether the evidence (if any) collected after the arrest of the appellant, can be relied upon or not, is a subject matter of trial but so far as the arrest of the present appellant is concerned, the same was completely unjustified and without authority of law and violative of appellant’s fundamental right of liberty and hence, he cannot be kept incarcerated in furtherance of an otherwise void arrest.

This Court is reminded of landmark judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau or Investigation & Anr. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 825. Relevant para is reproduced hereunder:-

“The consequence of non-compliance with Section 41 shall certainly inure to the benefit of the person suspected of the offense. Resultantly, while considering the application for enlargement on bail, courts will have to satisfy themselves on the due compliance of this provision. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused to a grant of bail.”

In view of the aforesaid and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”

Adopting the reasoning given in the case of Preetam Singh (supra), this present appeal is also allowed.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara qua the present appellant is set aside. It is ordered that the accused – appellant - Ajay Singh @ Goli @ Arvind S/o Ghanshyam Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.250/2023 registered at Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Appellant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

Needless to mention that in case, any incriminating evidence is unearthed by the investigating officer implicating the present appellant with the offences alleged, the investigating officer shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for cancellation of bail of the present appellant under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.