Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohammad Ishak vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:108) on 2 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:108]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2096/2024
1. Mohammad Ishak S/o Ayub Khan, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Chak 01 Lmk- C Jaalwali, At Present Dhani Chak 2
Sjn, Police Station New Mandi Gharsana, District
Anoopgarh (Raj) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail,
Sriganganagar)
2. Aasif Ali S/o Moharrum Khan, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Chak 01 Lmk- C Jaalwali, Police Station New Mandi
Gharsana, District Anoopgarh (Raj) (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rawta Ram S/o Lichhu Ram Meghwal, R/o Chak 2 Pm
Second, Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh (Raj)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tirupati Chandra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
02/01/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in
custody in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police
Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections
302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and
Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special
Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
(Downloaded on 02/01/2025 at 09:28:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:108] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-2096/2024]
Act Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred
under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants was rejected.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co-
accused persons namely Vijaypal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.14607/2024) & Kuldeep Singh (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14608/2024) have already been
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024.
3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated
02.12.2024 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the case of appellants is not
distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons
who have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the
appellants further submitted that the appellants have not been
named in the FIR. As per the FIR, the blunt weapon (danda)
recovered at the instance of the present appellants do not contain
any blood stains.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer
for bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the
order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court.
6. The order dated 02.12.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for
ready reference:-
“1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested
in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police
Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offence under
Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147,
148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/
ST Act.
2. As per the prosecution, on 06.06.2024, the
complainant- Rawtaram presented a written report before
the SHO of Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh(Downloaded on 02/01/2025 at 09:28:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:108] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-2096/2024]alleging inter alia that on 06.06.2024 at around 09:00-
10:00 A.M., the co-accused persons namely Aduram,
Omprakash, Tarachand, Narayan, Suresh Kumar,
Kishnaram, Lalchand and Tejpal, in unison, reached
Kaluram’s field in a camper vehicle being laced with lathis
and gandasi in their hands and started beating Kaluram
and his nephew- Narendra. In the aforesaid incident,
Narendra’s right elbow and both legs were grievously
injured. The accused persons also damaged two tractors
parked in Kaluram’s field and took away Kaluram’s and
Narendra’s smart phones with them. After kidnapping
Kaluram from his farm, the co-accused Omprakash took
him to his field and inflicted several injuries to him. When
the complainant reached Omprakash’s farm to rescue
Kaluram, the co-accused Omprakash also beat him up due
to which the complainant also received several injuries.
The complainant immediately called the police, and when
the police arrived at Omprakash’s farm, they rescued
Kaluram and the complainant. During the course of
treatment Kaluram succumbed to his injuries. On the
basis of the said report, an FIR came to be registered at
Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh against the
accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present
case as the petitioners have not been named in the FIR.
There is nothing on record of the case to indicate that the
petitioners had any motive to commit the alleged crime.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of
the complainant- Rawtaram, Surendra Singh, Girdhari
Singh, and Ranjeet Singh recorded under Section 161 of
the Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that these eye-
witnesses have even not named the petitioners. Awtar
Singh, Lakhveer Singh and Tarachand have though named
the petitioners in their statements recorded under Section
161 of the Cr.P.C. but are not the eye-witnesses, and
merely are the hearsay witnesses. The eye-witnesses
namely Narendra Kumar, Pradeep Kumar in their
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.
have though named the petitioners as assailants but
another eye-witness namely Shobha Singh in his
statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has
stated that the deceased- Kaluram was brutally beaten by
the co-accused Omprakash, Lalchand and Tejpal whereas
the petitioners merely stood near them with lathis in their
hands.
4. It was urged that inconsistencies in the statements
of the prosecution witnesses prima facie indicates that a
false story has been narrated by these witnesses only with
a view to rope the present petitioners in a criminal case.
Learned counsel further submitted that as per the
prosecution, blunt weapon (danda) have been recovered
at the instance of the present petitioners. However, the
FSL report dated 30.07.2024 generated by the Regional
Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner shows that the no
blood stains were detected on the blunt weapon (danda)
recovered at the instance of the petitioner- Vijaypal. Also,
the blood stains detected on the blunt weapon (danda)(Downloaded on 02/01/2025 at 09:28:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:108] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-2096/2024]recovered at the instance of the petitioner- Kuldeep Singh
were not sufficient to conduct test. The FSL
report/recoveries made at the instance of the present
petitioners, thus do not conclusively indicate complicity of
the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the
petitioners are in judicial custody; challan has already
been filed against them before the competent criminal
Court; no recovery is due to be made from them; and the
trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time,
therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused petitioners.
6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted
that looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled
against the present petitioners, these bail applications
deserve to be rejected straightaway.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar.
Perused the material available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds
that the petitioner have not been named as assailants in
the FIR as well as in the statements of the complainant
who himself got injuries in the alleged incident which took
place on 06.06.2024. There are huge inconsistencies and
variations in the statements of the eye-witnesses/material
prosecution witnesses of the case. In the FSL report dated
30.07.2024 there is no indication of human blood over the
blunt weapons (danda) recovered at the instance of the
present petitioners. Prima facie no evidence of petitioners
having a motive to commit the alleged crime is available
on record. The petitioners are in judicial custody and the
investigation against them has already been concluded.
The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents.
There is nothing on record of the case to demonstrate that
the petitioners if enlarged on bail would in any way
adversely affect the trial. Thus, without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
9. Consequently, these bail applications under Section
439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) are allowed. It is ordered that the
accused-petitioners- Vijaypal S/o Gopiram and
Kuldeep Singh S/o Raj Singh, arrested in connection
with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station
Rawla, District Anoopgarh, shall be released on bail, if not
wanted in any other case, provided each of them
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties
of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court, for their appearance before that Court on each &
every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so
till completion of the trial.
10. It is however, made clear that findings
recorded/observations made above are for limited
purposes of adjudication of bail applications. The trial
Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
11. A copy of this order be placed in each file.”
(Downloaded on 02/01/2025 at 09:28:48 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:108] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-2096/2024]
7. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as
available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments
advanced at bar, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the
appellants is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused
persons who have already been enlarged on bail. T his 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.
8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Sriganganagar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-
appellants (1) Mohammad Ishak S/o Ayub Khan & (2) Aasif
Ali S/o Moharrum Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh
shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
138-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 02/01/2025 at 09:28:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)