NARAYAN RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel representing the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel representing the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.82/2020, Police Station Maroth, District Nagaur, for the offences under Section 147, 148, 149, 354, 302, 323, 341 and 120B IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) Learned counsel Shri Ravindra Acharya representing the appellant, vehemently and fervently urged that as a matter of fact, the deceased was the aggressor in the case. A civil litigation was instituted by the deceased Hanuman Ram against the accused party which was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Nawa in the year 2015. On 24.06.2020, the appellants were peacefully working on the disputed chunk of land. The deceased Hanuman Ram came around armed with an axe and threatened the accused appellant and his son Mukesh, the co-accused to stop the work. However, when the accused did not refrain to this unjust demand, Hanuman Ram assaulted them by an axe. Grievous injuries were caused to the appellant herein virtually severing his fingers. Head injuries were inflicted to the appellant and the co-accused Mukesh. In these circumstances, the appellant and the co-accused persons were compelled to raise arms in defence. Injuries were inflicted to Hanuman Ram on the non-vital parts of the body which unfortunately proved fatal. Shri Acharya thus urged that the appellant, who is in judicial custody since June, 2020, has a strong case of private defence of person as well as property. Trial of the case is likely to consume. On these grounds, Shri Acharya sought acceptance of the appeal and prayed that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.