Gajraj Singh vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing. Learned Public Prosecutor is present in person in the Court.

The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 30.06.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases Karauli (Raj.) whereby bail application filed by the appellant was rejected.

F.I.R. No.309/2019 was registered at Police Station Nadoti Karauli for offence under Sections 323, 341 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (R)(S), 3(2)(VA) SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that there is cross F.I.R. The main offences are under Sections 323 & 341 I.P.C., which are bailable. There is no allegation that any caste based abuses were hurdled. It is also contended that no purpose would be served in arresting the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal. It is contended that bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. under SC/ST Act is not maintainable.

I have considered the contentions.

From bare perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that the dispute took place on the farm. Cross F.I.R. has been lodged. Offence as such has not been committed because complainant belongs to the SC/ST Community and the above offences under the I.P.C. are bailable.

Considering the above, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

The order dated 30.06.2020 is quashed and set-aside and this appeal is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Nadoti Karauli in F.I.R. No. 309/2019 is directed that in the event of arrest of the appellant he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :-

(i). that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

(iii). that the appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.