Kishan Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

The present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 14-A of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in connection with FIR No.250/2023, registered at Police Station Raipur, District Bhilwara for the offence under sections 365, 341, 323, 302, 201, 34 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (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 Parsi Devi and Kum Savita, whose appeal (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2494/2023) has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 14.12.2023.

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 – Parsi Devi and Kum Savita.

In the case of Parsi Devi and Kum Savita (supra), this Court has observed thus:

“2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants are ladies and their involvement in beating the deceased is improbable, particularly when at least six other persons were involved.

Learned counsel invited Courts attention towards the interrogatory note of the appellant No.1 and submitted that even if her admission is taken to be true then also, they might have participated in thrashing the deceased out of anger but since in the instant case, no specific role has been assigned to the present appellants, who are housewife and a girl respectively they cannot be accused of murder and kept behind the bars for indefinite period.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the present appeal by contending that the incident of beating/thrashing took place in the house of the appellants and they were actively involved in thrashing the deceased to such an extent that he succumbed to injuries.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including interrogatory note of the appellant No.1.

On perusal of the record, this Court is of the view that may be the deceased succumbed to the beating/ thrashing given by the relatives of the present appellants and present appellants might have joined in thrashing in some way but having regard to the fact that the deceased was being thrashed under the apprehension of theft committed by him and even if, the interrogatory note of appellant No.1 is taken to be correct, then also, both the appellants cannot be said to have any intention or common intention to murder the deceased.

Considering that the appellants are behind the bars since 16.10.2023 and they are female members of the family, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the present appellants on bail.”

Adopting the reasoning given in the case of Parsi Devi & Kum Savita (supra), this present appeal is also allowed.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 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 - Kishan Bharti S/o Chhoga Bharti 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 Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 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.