AJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed under Sec. 14A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2020, registered at Police Station Taranagar, District Churu, for the offences under Ss. 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Sec. 3(2) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dtd. 7/3/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu whereby, the bail application preferred under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

(2.) At the threshold, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused persons namely Maan Singh @ Mania (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1541/2023) and Suresh (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1357/2023) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dtd. 26/2/2024. Learned counsel contended that the case of the present appellant is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons therefore, the appellant may also be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Learned counsel further contended that there are no eye witnesses of the alleged incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the 'last seen' theory. Learned counsel submitted that there is a considerable time gap between, when the deceased-Rampratap was lastly seen alive in the company of the present appellant and when the deceased was found dead. This is clearly established from the statements of the witness- Hanuman (PW.7) who has stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of the accused at 9:00 PM. On 16/7/2020 and the deceased was found in the kund on the next day at 12:00 PM. Further, learned counsel submitted that it is apparent from the statements of the Investigating Officer (PW.9) who has stated that the complainant-Mahendra in the statements recorded under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C., had disclosed that he himself, had not seen the present appellant taking the deceased away in a car from the house of the complainant and rather, the said information was supplied to him by one- Rajesh. Learned counsel further submitted that the witness- Mahendra (PW.6), upon the pertinent question in this regard initially feigned ignorance but later on, accepted it. Learned counsel thus, on the strength of these facts submitted that the entire aspect of the deceased lastly seen alive in the company of the accused is doubtful.