Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 16337 (RAJ)

RAM CHOPARA @ BACCHA S/O LT DILIP CHOPARA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/1141/2025 · 2025-05-16

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:20837] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Second Appeal (Sb) No. 1141/2025 Ram Chopara @ Baccha S/o Lt Dilip Chopara, Aged About 19 Years, R/o House No. 5, F8, Bombay Yogana Near Chawla Circle, P.s. R.k. Puram Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Dharamchand Bairwa S/o Ramswaroop Bairwa, R/o Tenant At House Of Banwar Bombay Yogana R.k Puram Kota Permanent Address Dadiya Baroni Tonk (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/05/2025 1. The second appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) 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, Kota (Raj) in Bail Application No.54/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.328/2024 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police [2025:RJ-JP:20837] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1141/2025] filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under sections 126(2), 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2) & 3(5) of the BNS 2023, Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2) (v), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appeal (bail) preferred by the appellant on earlier occasion was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2025. Counsel submits that after dismissal of earlier appeal, victim of this case has been examined during the course of trial and after recording her testimony, bail application was preferred under Section 483 BNSS before the learned Trial Court which was dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2025 thus, this second appeal (bail) has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It appears from the testimony of the victim that alleged incident took place in spur of the moment and appellant was not having any intention to cause injury on the person of the injured. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 01.10.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel submits that two life threatening injuries were found on the person of the injured and both are attributed to the appellant which shows that appellant had intention to kill the injured. Counsel further submits that apart [2025:RJ-JP:20837] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1141/2025] from this, seven other cases have been registered against the appellant and during currency of bail in those cases, another offence has been committed by him. Counsel further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this criminal appeal(bail). 5. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of victim/complainant to oppose the prayer of bail. 6. 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 fact that there is serious allegation against the appellant of causing two life threatening injuries on the person of the injured and seven other cases have also been registered against him, I do not find it a fit case to change my earlier view. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal (bail) stands dismissed. However, observations made herein are only for decision of this appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J HEENA/46