Virendra Singh vs State And Others

Sandeep Mehta, J

This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 21.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, District Churu rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.88/2015, Police Station Doodhwakhara, District Churu, for the offences under Section 302/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel representing the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the material available on record.

No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.2 complainant despite service.

Learned counsel Shri Bishnoi submits that till date, only the statement of medical jurist has been recorded by the trial court and that too only the examination in chief and the cross examination remains to be conducted. He submits that while deciding the first appeal for bail (No.2004/2017) filed on behalf of the appellant, the trial court was directed to examine the eye witnesses expeditiously. However, a perusal of the order-sheets of the trial court would indicate that on numerous dates of hearing, the appellant was not produced in the Court from the prison. Furthermore, the witnesses too did not remain present for deposition.

This Court is constrained to observe that despite all the facilities having been provided for securing attendance of the prisoners through Video Conferencing, the trial court seems to have made hardly any attempt in this regard.

The prosecution has come out with a story that the accused Hari Singh @ Hariya drove the vehicle on the deceased Ramlal whereas the appellant herein and the co-accused Mukesh fired gunshots at him. When postmortem was conducted, only a solitary firearm injury was noticed on the mandible area of the deceased Ramlal which led to his death. In subsequent development, through the statements of Jagdish Prasad, Suresh Kumar and Narendra @ Leeladhar, the allegation of firing the gunshots qua the accused Mukesh was given up and this allegation has been now pinned on to the accused appellant herein. Apparently thus, the prosecution has improved its case at different stages. The co- accused Hari Ram @ Hariya and Mukesh have been enlarged on bai.

Be that as it may. The appellant has suffered incarceration in prison for the last more than 5 years and four months. As many as 30 (22+8) are cited by the prosecution of which, not even one has been examined in totality.

Learned Public Prosecutor has provided list of six other cases registered against the appellant in three of these, the appellant has been acquitted. In one case, the appellant seems to have been arraigned as an accused after being arrested in the present case.

In view of the discussion made herein above and, considering the prolonged custody suffered by the appellant; the bleak chances of early disposal of the trial and that the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.10.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, District Churu is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Virendra Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.88/2015, Police Station Doodhwakhara, District Churu shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.