[2025:RJ-JP:33935] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 831/2025 Naveen Kumar @ Dhillu S/o Dalip Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhobda Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (At Present Accused Confined In District Jail, Jhunjhunu) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor 2. Sachin S/o Raju, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 12, Subhash Dhani, Loharu District Bhiwani (Haryana) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal Mr. Vikas Kumar, D.S.P (I.O.), Chirawa (Jhunjhunu) Mr. Yunush Khan with Mr. Mohd. Zuber HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN O R D E R DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 28/08 /202 5 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 15.02.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj) in Criminal Misc. (Bail Application) No.32/2025 (CIS No.32/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.326/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of [2025:RJ-JP:33935] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-831/2025] 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 103(1), 3(5), 115(2) & 109(2) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) 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 that his name is not in the FIR and there is no clear allegation of murder against him. He has been arrested in this case without any evidence and he has been in custody since 08.11.2024. He also argues that nothing has been recovered from the appellant except his own pick up vehicle and recovery of the vehicle has no significance in this case because the mechanical report of the vehicle shows that there was no collision with that vehicle as no collision marks were found on the vehicle. The charge-sheet has been filed and trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Counsel submits that till 30.06.2025, only one witness has been examined out of seventeen cited prosecution witness. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel assisted by the counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Investigating officer of this case is present in person and under his instructions, learned State Counsel submits that the appellant's argument that his name is not in the FIR is absolutely wrong. The name of appellant has wrongly been mentioned as Tillu in the FIR who actually is appellant Naveen alias Dhillo as the name of the father of both [2025:RJ-JP:33935] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-831/2025] Tillu/ Dhillu is Dilip Singh. He further submits that the police came to know from their reliable sources that the deceased and two others were riding a motorcycle with loud noise outside the house of the appellant due to which the appellant lost his temper and drove his pick up vehicle to chase and hit them with great force due to which Satish died. They further argued that on the basis of the information given by the appellant, his pick up vehicle has been recovered and prosecution story has been confirmed by a witness because after the murder, the appellant's vehicle got stuck on the unpaved dirt road and the appellant called him over the phone to get it out. The trial in this case, where a person lost his life is still in its initial stage and the evidence of crucial witnesses is yet to be recorded. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the material available on record and the fact that petitioner is the same person who is named as Tillu in the FIR; trial is at initial stage as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. 6. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. 7. However, appellant would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of injured namely Kartik @ Sunda as well as Investigating Officer of this case. [2025:RJ-JP:33935] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-831/2025] 8. Learned trial Court is requested to record the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses on priority basis as first and second witness. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /421