[2025:RJ-JP:30835] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 762/2025 Vikas S/o Shri Ramnarayan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Chanda Maharaj Ki Puliya Jhalawar P.s. Kotwali Jhalawar District Jhalawar (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Kanhaiyalal Mehar S/o Sundarlal Mehar, R/o Raipur District Jhalawar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/08/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar in Bail Application No. 54/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.20/2025 registered at Police Station Jhalawar Sadar, District Jhalawar for the offences punishable under Sections 308(4), 111(2)(b), 352 & 353(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:30835] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-762/2025] that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that simple allegation of threat has been levelled against the appellant which is also incorrect. Counsel submits that impugned FIR came to be registered against the appellant on account of business rivalry. Counsel submits that in order to create complications, allegation with regard to atrocities under SC/ST Act has been levelled against the appellant. It is submitted that co-accused namely- Bhanu Pratap urf Bhanu Bana has already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that appellant is in custody since 04.03.2025 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. He submits that appellant is a habitual offender as 24 other cases have been registered against him. Counsel further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 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 parties, especially considering the material available on record including statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC, as also considering the fact that aforementioned co-accused [2025:RJ-JP:30835] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-762/2025] person has already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar in Bail Application No. 54/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Vikas S/o Shri Ramnarayan arrested in connection with FIR No.20/2025 registered at Police Station Jhalawar Sadar, District Jhalawar, 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. It is made clear that the accused-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant, as directed above. In case the appellant fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:30835] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-762/2025] 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /463