SAMEER Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Sec. 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) as amended by the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 being aggrieved by the order dtd. 28/3/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner in CIS No.529/2023 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.156/2022, Police Station Nayashahar, District Bikaner, for the offences under Ss. 302, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Ss. 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not been named in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that appellant has been implicated in the present on the basis of statement of eye witnesses Devilal as PW-2 and Bhanwar Lal as PW-1 recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. before the competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that both the eye witnesses have not supported prosecution story before the competent criminal court and have turned hostile. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of eye witnesses Devilal as PW-2 and Bhanwar Lal as PW-1. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody since 22/3/2022; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that neither the appellant has been named in the FIR nor has he been named by the eye-witnesses in commission of the crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the co-accused Jitendra Tanwar @ Jitu Mali (S.B. Criminal Appeal(Sb) No.1958/2023) and Sohil (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1333/2022) have already been enlarged on bail.