SANJAY SAHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal appeals under Sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') have been filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the orders dtd. 27/6/2019 and 13/6/2019 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Udaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal Misc. Case Nos. 298/2019 and 284/2019 whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail applications filed on behalf of the appellants.

(2.) The appellants have been arrested in FIR No. 118/2019 of Police Station Savina, District Udaipur for the offences punishable under Ss. 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and Sec. 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the allegation against the appellants of committing murder of deceased Kamlesh Meena is absolutely false. It is submitted that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the appellants have committed crime. It is argued submitted that during the course of investigation, the police have recorded the statements of one Vaseem Akram, who has only stated that on 28/3/2019, he saw co-accused Shaitan Singh along with Kamlesh Meena in a cafe, where Ashish Salwi, appellants viz. Ravi Rawal and Bhupendra Dangi also joined them. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that simply on the basis of the said statements of Vaseem Akram, it cannot be said that the appellants are involved in commission of crime. It is also submitted that the alleged weapon of offence has also been recovered at the instance of co-accused Shaitan Singh. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted that the police have not collected any information from appellants viz. Sanjay Sahu and Ravi Rawal, however, have collected only information from appellant Bhupendra Dangi regarding the place, where the murder of deceased Kamlesh Meena took place. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the police have filed charge-sheet against the appellants and no further interrogation is required from them.