DINESH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant second appeal has been filed under Sec. 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.163/2022, Police Station Kotwali Pali, for the offence under Ss. 307, 325, 323/34 of IPC, and Ss. 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5)(5A) of SC/ST Act against the order dtd. 20/10/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali whereby, the bail application preferred under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. The first appeal of the appellant was rejected by this Court vide order dtd. 22/11/2022 with liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statement of injured-Mukesh.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that statement of injured- Mukesh has been recorded before the trial court as PW-2 and according to his statement, present appellant inflicted head injury to him, thereafter, all other accused persons caused injuries to him. Counsel further submitted that as per injury report of injured Mukesh, head injury is found to be simple in nature but he received eighth rib fractures. Counsel argued that there is not specific allegation against the present appellant for causing chest injury to the injured. Furthermore, statement of Doctor has also been recorded before the trial Court as PW-3 and in cross-examination, he specifically mentioned that none of the injuries is found sufficient to cause death. The accused-appellant is in judicial custody since 27/4/2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. He further submits that the learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well in declining to release the appellant on bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.