[2025:RJ-JP:18620] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Second Appeal (Sb) No. 968/2025 Subhash Gurjar S/o Shri Sanwarmal Gurjar, Aged About 300 Years, R/o Raiwasa, Police Station Jeenmata, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Hari Ram S/o Shri Nanda Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Raiwasa Police Station Jeenmata District Sikar (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya with Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 02/05/2025 1. The criminal second appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 27.03.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Raj.) in Second Bail Application No. 195/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.206/2024 registered at Police Station Jeenmata, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2) & 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in [2025:RJ-JP:18620] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-968/2025] this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 111(2)(b) & 3(5) of BNS 2023, Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and Section 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that first criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20.03.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. Thereafter, appellant filed second bail application before the learned trial court and the said application was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2025. It is submitted that though there is allegation against the petitioner of using firearm but admittedly, it is a case of no injury. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Appellant is in custody since 21.01.2025 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 it is true that it is a case of no injury but appellant is a hardcore criminal as thirteen other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that complainant/victim of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal. 4. Despite information, no one put in appearance on behalf of the complainant/victim to oppose the prayer of bail made in this appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:18620] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-968/2025] 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 both the parties, especially the fact that it is a case of no injury 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, the criminal second appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Subhash Gurjar S/o Shri Sanwarmal Gurjar, arrested in connection with FIR No.206/2024 registered at Police Station Jeenmata, District Sikar, shall be released on bail, 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 the first and third week 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 [2025:RJ-JP:18620] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-968/2025] station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any 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. 11. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /236