Sunil Kumar Vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court 30 Jan 2024 Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2492 Of 1987 (2024) 01 RAJ CK 0128
Bench: Single Bench
Result Published
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2492 Of 1987

Hon'ble Bench

Kuldeep Mathur, J

Advocates

RJ Punia, Mukhtiyar Khan, Suresh Kumar Maru

Final Decision

Allowed

Acts Referred
  • Scheduled Caste And Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(b)(ii), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(vi), 14A
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 120B, 201, 342, 376 D, 376(2)(n),
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161, 164, 439

Judgement Text

Translate:

Kuldeep Mathur, J

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection

with F.I.R. No.397/2022, registered at Police Station Dhorimana, District Barmer, for the offences under Sections 342, 376 D, 376 (2) (n), 201, 120B

I.P.C. and sections 3(1)(b)(ii), 3(2)(v), (vi) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned

Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer whereby, the bail application preferred under Section

439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

The previous criminal appeal of the appellant was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2023.

Heard learned counsel for appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant who is aged about 21 years has been falsely implicated in the criminal case. Drawing

attention of the Court towards the statements of the victim ‘M’ recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C. on 28.11.2022, learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that since the victim was a deaf, dumb and disabled girl, therefore, the statements got recorded in the presence of special educator

Kesrimal Kuldeep as per which the co-accused Harji Ram committed the offence. Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the statement of

prosecutrix victim ‘M’ recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. recorded in the presence of special educator Smt. Parul Vaishnav on 16.12.2022 as

per which, only one person committed rape upon her.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since specific allegation has been levelled against the co-accused Harji Ram and no specific role has

been allegedly assigned to the appellant in the commission of crime and investigation against the appellant has already been completed, no fruitful

purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind bars for an indefinite period.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since co-accused namely Bhajan Lal has already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this

Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.171/2023, the appellant who is in judicial custody since 11.12.2022 and trial of the

case is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude, thus, benefit of bail should also be granted to the accused-appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, they were not in a

position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record, upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar and after

perusing the statements of victim ‘M’ recorded under various Sections of Cr.P.C., this Court prima facie finds that the prosecutrix in her

statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. with the assistance of Special Educator Parul Vaishnav stated that only one person committed rape

upon her. The prosecutrix during her statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.c. with the assistance of Special Educator Kesrimal Kuldeep,

specifically stated that co-accused Harji Ram committed offence. This Court also prima facie finds that investigation against the appellant has already

been completed. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, there is no reasonable ground to allow further incarceration of the appellant. Thus, this Court

is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set

aside.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sunil Kumar S/o Sajan Ram,

arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.397/2022, registered at Police Station Dhorimana, District Barmer, shall be released on bail; provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- 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.

From The Blog
Tamil Nadu Ex-Minister K. Ponnusamy Haunted by Old Debt Defaults in Corruption Case
Dec
04
2025

Court News

Tamil Nadu Ex-Minister K. Ponnusamy Haunted by Old Debt Defaults in Corruption Case
Read More
Supreme Court of India Warns: Police and Courts Must Avoid Criminal Charges in Civil Disputes
Dec
04
2025

Court News

Supreme Court of India Warns: Police and Courts Must Avoid Criminal Charges in Civil Disputes
Read More