[2025:RJ-JP:21845] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 811/2025 Deepak Gurjar @ Hanni Gurjar S/o Raju, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Jinda Mohalla Bhiwadi Police Station Bhiwadi District Khairthal Tijara (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.P. ---Respondent 2. Sanjay Tanwar S/o Mulchand, R/o Harchandpur Bhiwadi Phase – III, Bhiwadi (Raj) ----Complainant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manjeet Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/05/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A 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, Alwar (Raj) in Bail Application No.61/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.227/2024 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi Phase-III, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Sections 3/25 & 5/25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [2025:RJ-JP:21845] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-811/2025] (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 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 16.12.2024 however, he was granted liberty to renew the prayer of bail before the trial Court after recording testimony of injured as well as medical expert, who examined the injured. It is submitted that when both the witnesses were examined, bail application was preferred 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 there is allegation against the appellant of causing firearm injury on the person of the injured however, no gunshot injury has been found on the person of the injured and same is evident from the testimony of medical expert. He argues that no evidence is available on record that pistol which is allegedly recovered from the possession of the appellant was used in commission of crime. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the appellant is in custody since 06.09.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal and submits that appellant is a habitual offender as apart from this, 6 other cases have been [2025:RJ-JP:21845] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-811/2025] registered against him out of which 3 cases are registered under the Arms Act. He further submits that there is allegation against the appellant of using firearm and seven injuries have been found on the person of the injured including fracture on his leg. Counsel submits that complainant/victim of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this bail application. 5. Despite information, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant/victim to oppose the prayer of bail. 6. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 7. 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 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. 8. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant – Deepak Gurjar @ Hanni Gurjar S/o Raju arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.227/2024 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi Phase-III, District Bhiwadi, 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. [2025:RJ-JP:21845] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-811/2025] 9. 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. 10. 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. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/45