[2025:RJ-JP:29289] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 989/2025 Sachin Sharma Son Of Shri Ramgopal Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Babariya, Police Station Harsora, District Kotputli Behror, Presently Tenant At Livasha Apartment, Flat No. 505, Sector-26, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Presently The Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur Since 08.04.2025) ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor 2. Manish Kumar Verma Son Of Shri Madan Gopal Verma, Resident Of House No. 15, Raiger Basti, Mansinghpura Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar with Mr. Anirudh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/07/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Bail Application No. 81/2025 (CIS No.760/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.578/2023 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 354 & 120B [2025:RJ-JP:29289] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-989/2025] of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of 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 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 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 that entire offences are based on documents and same are in possession of the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that appellant is not a party of the agreement in any capacity. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 08.04.2025 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 victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of victim/complainant. 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, as also the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion [2025:RJ-JP:29289] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-989/2025] 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 15.04.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Bail Application No. 81/2025 (CIS No.760/2025) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sachin Sharma Son Of Shri Ramgopal Sharma arrested in connection with FIR No.578/2023 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) (Rajasthan), 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /451