Mahesh Bharti vs State Of Rajasthan

This criminal appeal under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.423/2018 whereby the trial court dismissed the said bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

The appellant has been arrested in FIR No.268/2016 of Police Station, Basni, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/St Act.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that during the course of trial, the statements of complainant - Kirta Ram and so called eye-witness Shrawan Ram were recorded as PW.1 and PW.2. It is submitted that from the statement of PW.1 - Kirta Ram, it is clear that initially the police had informed him about the death of his son Birma Ram while stating that he received a head injury in an accident, however, later on, the police procured a complaint from him and lodged an FIR against the appellant, wherein the complainant has alleged that his son Birma Ram was murdered by the appellant and information in this regard was received by him from Shrawan Ram.

Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that whole analysis of statement of PW.1-Kirta Ram clearly reveals that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and there are all possibilities that the police would have saved the actual culprits and falsely implicated the appellant in commission of crime.

Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that PW.2 - Shrawan Ram has also not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile and in his examination on behalf of the accused, he has specifically stated that he did not know the appellant and the brother of the deceased Shera Ram asked him to name the appellant while threatening, otherwise he and one Leela would be implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that PW.2 Shrawan Ram has specifically deposed that he had not seen the appellant inflicting any injury on the head of the deceased.

Learned counsel has, therefore, argued that in view of the statements of the prime witnesses PW.1 Kirta Ram and PW.2 Shrawan Ram, it is clear that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and it is very difficult for prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellant in commission of crime. Learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, prayed that the appellant be released on bail.

Per contra, Mr Farzand Ali, learned Additional Advocate General-cum-G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that though PW.2 Shrawan Ram has declared hostile but from his statement-in-chief and other statements given by him, it is clear that the appellant was involved in commission of crime. Mr Farzand Ali further argued that apart from the statement of eye-witness PW.2 Shrawan Ram, there is other evidence available on record, whereby the police collected a bloodstained iron rod and blood smeared shoes of the deceased at the instance of the appellant. He has, therefore, submitted that the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage.

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

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act to the appellant.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A of SC/ST Act is rejected.