AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Accused-appellant has laid this appeal under Section 14A(2)
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ''Act of 1989'') to assail impugned
order dated 06.10.2017 passed by Special Court (SC/ ST Act
Cases), Churu (Raj.) (for short, ''learned trial Court'') rejecting his
bail application in Sessions Case No.47/2012 pending before it.
The Sessions Case is founded on FIR No.260/2012 registered at
Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, wherein after investigation,
appellant is charged for offence punishable under Sections 302,
201 IPC.
It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that trial
was almost complete against appellant but after recording of his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court has
allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to proceed
against other co-accused Om Prakash for commission of offence,
whose name also surfaced during trial. Learned counsel has
therefore argued that now learned trial Court shall conduct de
novo trial and conclusion of same is likely to take considerable
time. It is further argued by learned counsel that appellant is
under custody since 01.07.2012. While referring to the evidence,
which has come to the fore during trial, learned counsel would
contend that essentially the allegations for giving serious blow by
wine bottle on the head of deceased are against co-accused Om
Prakash. Learned counsel has further submitted that though lathi
was recovered from the place of occurrence but its use in the
commission of offence is doubtful, inasmuch as, as per autopsy
report, deceased has suffered punctured wound on his head.
Lastly, learned counsel would contend that a very vital fact that
appellant is under incarceration for last more than five years and
do novo trial has been ordered by learned trial Court but the
learned trial Court has completely eschewed the same in the
impugned order while considering bail plea of the appellant.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
appeal and submitted that a discretionary order passed by
learned trial Court is not liable to be tinkered with in exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments
advanced at the Bar.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
more particularly long incarceration of the appellant during trial
for more than five years, in the backdrop of available material, in
my opinion, it would not be appropriate to keep the appellant
under custody.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the impugned
order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered
that accused-appellant, Leela Ram @ Leelu Ram S/o Sohan Ram,
arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.260/2012 Police Station
Rajgarh, District Churu, may be released on bail; provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of 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.