[2025:RJ-JP:15165] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 807/2025 Keshav Singh Son Of Hetram, Resident Of Gram Bahadurpur Police Station Sadar Dholpur (Raj) (At Present In District Jail Dholpur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Amit Kumar Son Of Rajveer Singh, R/o Dagarpur Police Station Sadar Dholpur District Dholpur At Present Posted As Junior Engineer R-1, Jatauli Police Station Sadar Dholpur District Dholpur (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Jain For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Ramu Dubey HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/04/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Bail Application No.37/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.29/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 189(2), 121(1), 132, 125, 303(2) & 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). Investigation is being [2025:RJ-JP:15165] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-807/2025] conducted for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 121(1), 132, 125, 303(2) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) & 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 it is a case of simple injury and parties have resolved their dispute amicably. Learned counsel contends that appellant has no criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Appellant is in custody since 08.03.2025 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise and he has no objection if this appeal is allowed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 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 considering the fact that parties have resolved their dispute amicably; appellant has no criminal antecedents 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. [2025:RJ-JP:15165] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-807/2025] 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Bail Application No. 37/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Keshav Singh Son Of Hetram, arrested in connection with FIR No.29/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur, 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /332