Sachin @ Teekla S/o Veerdaram vs State of Rajasthan

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 16.11.2017, rendered by Special Court, Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases,

Jodhpur (for short, ''learned trial Court''), rejecting his second bail

application in Sessions Case No.128/2017. The Sessions case

aforesaid is arising out of FIR No.01/2017 of Police Station Kuri

Bhagtasani, wherein appellant is charged for offences under

Section 302 / 34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

Appellant made endeavour before the learned trial Court at

the first instance for seeking bail but the same was rejected vide

order dated 04.07.2017. Against that order, appeal was preferred

by the appellant and the same was registered as S.B. Criminal

Appeal No.1012/2017. The said appeal was dismissed by this

Court on 27.07.2017 with liberty to renew prayer for bail after

recording statements of complainant Gauri Shankar and two other

eye-witnesses. It is in that background, after recording the

evidence of these witnesses appellant has made endeavour for

seeking bail before the learned trial Court but his that effort has

proved abortive.

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that

complainant Gauri Shankar (P.W.2) has turned hostile during trial,

inasmuch as, he has completely disowned his earlier statement.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the witness has not

whispered anything against the appellant about commission of the

aforesaid offence. While referring to the statements of other

witnesses, Pushpa Devi (P.W.3) - mother of the deceased and

Narendra (P.W.4) brother of the deceased, it is argued by learned

counsel for the appellant that these witnesses have also not

supported the prosecution case by turning hostile. Learned

counsel has also urged that even independent witness Mukesh

Kumar, who is neighbour of the deceased, has also retracted from

his earlier version by turning hostile, therefore, while relying on

the testimonies of all these witnesses, he would contend that

these material change in the circumstances ought to have been

taken note of by the learned trial Court while considering bail plea

of the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that as

the learned trial Court in exercise of its discretion has not

considered fractured testimonies of all these witnesses, therefore,

impugned order is liable to be upset and appellant deserves to be

released on bail.

E.converso, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed this appeal. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor

that learned trial Court in its discretion has declined bail to the

appellant, therefore, the said order is not liable to be tinkered with

in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments

advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record

including statements of all four prosecution witnesses.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I

feel persuaded to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the impugned

order passed by learned trial Court is set aside and it is ordered

that accused-appellant, Sachin @ Teekla S/o Veerdaram, arrested

in connection with F.I.R. No.01/2017 Police Station Kuri

Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur, 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.