Gaurav Bhati vs State on 11 September, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1273 / 2017
Gaurav Bhati S/o Magraj, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Ghanchi,
R/o House No. 106, Milkmen Colony, Gali No. 5, Pal Road, P.S.
Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
(At Present Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)
—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N.K. Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, P.P., for the State
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
JUDGMENT

11/09/2017

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 22.08.2017 passed by Judge, Special Court,

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Cases, Jodhpur (for short, ‘learned trial Court’), whereby learned

trial Court has rejected the bail application of the appellant under

Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The facts, apposite for the purpose of this appeal, are that

complainant Ms. Leela lodged FIR No.141/2017 at Police Station

Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, wherein she has charged appellant and 20

others for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 354 IPC

and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989.

(2 of 3)
[CRLA-1273/2017]

It is argued by learned counsel that appellant has been

falsely implicated in the matter and complainant has projected an

embellished version of a trivial incident so as to implicate him for

offence under Section 354 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)

(va) of the Act of 1989. Learned counsel has also argued that

although during investigation statements of three women

witnesses of complainant and others are recorded under Section

164 Cr.P.C. but a cumulative reading of all these statements shows

that the allegations are omnibus and prima facie offence under

Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 is not made

out. Lastly, learned counsel has argued that learned trial Court

has not appreciated the matter in right perspective while declining

bail to the appellant.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. It is

argued by learned Public Prosecutor that a discretionary order

passed by learned trial Court warrants no interference in exercise

of appellate jurisdiction.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

taking into account alleged criminal delinquency of the appellant,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I feel

persuaded to set aside the impugned order.

Accordingly, instant appeal is allowed, the impugned order

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

accused-appellant, Gaurav Bhati S/o Magraj, arrested in
(3 of 3)
[CRLA-1273/2017]

connection with F.I.R. No.141/2017 of Police Station Shastri Nagar,

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.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

Bharti/150

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *