[2025:RJ-JP:26000] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1413/2025 Ajay @ Aalam @ Golu S/o Suresh Chand, Aged About 18 Years, Age About 18 Years 1 Month R/o Noornagar, Police Station Kishangarh Bass, District Khairthal Tijara (Raj) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Nandu S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Noornagar Police Station Kishangarh Bass, District Khairthal Tijara (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Anupam Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/07/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (Raj.) in Second Bail Application No. 115/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.418/2024 registered at Police Station Kishangarh-Bass, District Khairthal-Tijara for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 238(a) of BNS and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under [2025:RJ-JP:26000] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1413/2025] Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 118(1), 238(b) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act & Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. On an earlier occasion, criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of injured as well as medical expert. Thereafter, bail application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial court but, same was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2025. Now, both the aforementioned witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, thus this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it has been admitted by the medical expert in her testimony that there is no reference in Exhibit P-1 with regard to the fact that all the injuries are dangerous to life. It is also appeared from the testimony of the victim/injured that appellant was falsely been implicated in this case. Appellant is aged about 18 years, who is in custody since 01.09.2024. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant. Trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that there is serious allegation against the appellant of causing two knife injuries on the neck of the injured and both injuries have been opined as dangerous to life. [2025:RJ-JP:26000] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1413/2025] 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material made available before me, so also considering the role attributed to the appellant and the fact that two life threatening injuries have been noted by the medical expert on the neck of the injured; looking to the gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /33