HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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)
State of Rajasthan
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
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)
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)
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.