RAMA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 15.12.2017 passed by Special Sessions Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jalore (for short, 'learned trial Court'). By the order impugned, learned trial Court has rejected the post-bail application of appellant in respect of FIR No.88/2016 of Police Station Jaswantpura, District Jalore which eventually culminated into challan against the appellant and other accused persons for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 326, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989.

(2.) At present trial in Sessions Case No.8/2017 is under progress before the learned trial Court.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jain, that learned trial Court, while declining bail to appellant, has not at all cared to examine material change in the circumstances which has come to the fore after recording statements of 16 prosecution witnesses. It is submitted by learned counsel that one of the injured eye-witnesses P.W.5 Kantilal has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. Learned counsel further submits that although 16 witnesses have been examined but still eight witnesses are yet to be examined and, at the behest of complainant, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is also laid for summoning seven additional accused persons to be tried with the other accused persons. It is in that background, learned counsel has submitted that appellant, who is in custody for last more than a year, may be released on bail by upsetting the impugned order as trial is not likely to be concluded within a short duration. Learned counsel has further submitted that although statements of other injured P.W.16 Vikram Singh @ Pappu Singh are inculpatory in nature, but a cumulative reading of his statements makes it abundantly clear that he was given four to five axe blow on his head by co-accused Dungaram and allegations of giving lathi blow against the appellant and other accused persons are omnibus. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on injury report of Vikram Singh, which is indicative of the fact that he has received three incised wounds on his occipital region caused by axe blow and rest of the injuries are swelling and abrasion. With all these arguments, learned counsel has argued that the impugned order be upset and appellant be released on bail.