[2025:RJ-JP:22440] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 754/2025 Surgyan Jat Son Of Gogaram, Resident Of Ramnagar Police Station Kotkhavda District Jaipur Rural (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Non-Appellant 2. Nanda Ram Meena S/o Jodharam Meena, Resident Of Ramjanipura Kotkhawda Jaipur City (South). ----Complainant-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv., with Ms. Kamini Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP and Mr. Swadheen Singh, Adv., on behalf of Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/05/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Raj) in Second Bail Application No.48/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.184/2024 registered at Police Station Kotkhawda, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 103(1) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of [2025:RJ-JP:22440] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-754/2025] SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 103(1), 190 & 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that first appeal for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2025, however, he was granted liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of injured witness Shani @ Sunny. It is submitted that apart from the aforesaid witness, eye-witness namely Gabbar has also been examined thereafter, second bail application was preferred by the appellant before the learned trial Court and same was dismissed on 12.03.2025 thus, this appeal has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that it appears from testimony of the witnesses that there is no allegation against the appellant of causing injury on the person of the deceased and same has been attributed to co- accused Rahul Jat. He further submits that other co-accused persons namely Jai Prakash Meena and Giraj Gurjar have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He argues that charge- sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the appellant is in custody [2025:RJ-JP:22440] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-754/2025] since 18.07.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. Learned counsel for complainant submits that presence of appellant is well established at the place of incident and there is allegation against the appellant of causing injury on the person of injured witness- Sunny. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant, as also looking to the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of injured witness Sunny as well as eye-witness Gabbar, other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court; further considering the fact that there is no allegation against the appellant of causing injury on the person of the deceased, absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant – Surgyan Jat Son Of Gogaram arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.184/2024 registered at Police Station Kotkhawda, District [2025:RJ-JP:22440] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-754/2025] Jaipur City (South), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observation made herein above is only for decision of this criminal appeal (bail) and would not have any impact or bearing on the trial. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/93