Ghanshyam vs State Of Rajasthan

Accused-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') to assail impugned order dated 01.06.2018, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court') rejecting his post-arrest bail application pending trial in Sessions Case No.80/2016.

In the aforementioned sessions case, appellant is charged for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 365, 302 & 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.

Mr. Sanjay Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, has strenuously urged that learned trial Court, while rejecting bail plea of the appellant, did not consider the facts and circumstances, which are relevant and germane of the matter. It is also argued by learned counsel that the learned trial Court has already framed charges and almost all the co-accused have been enlarged on bail. It is also submitted by learned counsel that there is no reliable material available on record to prove nexus of the appellant with the alleged offences and it is a clear case of false implication. Taking a dig at the allegations in the FIR, it is argued by learned counsel that in the FIR, besides appellant, co-accused Dhirendra Singh was also named but during investigation it is clearly unfurled that on the date of the incident, he was at Mandsore (M.P.). Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, learned counsel has contended that naming a person in the FIR, who was not even present at the scene of occurrence, besides appellant, has prima facie established falsity of the allegations.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the appeal filed by appellant. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that besides the present case, appellant is also an accused in another case, which is pending trial, wherein serious charges are attributed to him including charge for offence under Section 307 IPC and offence under the Act. It is also submitted that mere framing of charges has not altered the circumstances much less substantial alterations in the circumstances after rejection of earlier appeal of the appellant on 30.05.2018.

I have bestowed my considerations to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record as well as the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the backdrop of serious criminal delinquencies attributed to the appellant, besides his involvement in one other case for heinous offence under Section 307 IPC, I feel disinclined to interfere with the impugned order at this stage.

Resultantly, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected.