[2025:RJ-JP:32540] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1443/2025 Aman @ Lala S/o Ayyub Khan, R/o Nai Anaj Mandi Chhawani Kota At Present C-728, Mohanlal Sukhadiya Avasiya Yojana Kota Police Thana Nanta District Kota Rajasthan (At Present Confined At District Jail Bundi) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Chauthmal S/o Bhanwarlal Meena, R/o Budhkarwar Karwar Bundi Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/08/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.126/2024, registered at Police Station Indargarh, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 140(2) of BNS and Sections 3(2) (v), of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Bundi whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that PW-1 Vikas Meena in his examination-in-chief has not identified the petitioner and no identification parade was conducted from [2025:RJ-JP:32540] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1443/2025] Vikas Meena and Rajneesh. Rajneesh and Vikas Meena in their statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS not mentioned the name of the accused-appellant. It is further submitted that accused-appellant is in custody since 20.12.2024 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeal of accused-appellant may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted the service report effected upon the complainant. No one has put in appearance on behalf of complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that accused-appellant alongwith the other accused kidnapped the victim and demanded ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Two Lakh) and kept him in captivation in a farm house. The material witnesses Rajeesh and Arvindra are yet to be examined. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that accused-appellant is a habitual offender and there are 27 cases pending against him, therefore the bail of the accused- appellant may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is alleged against the petitioner that he alongwith the other co-accused kidnapped the victim PW-1 Vikas Meena thereafter, demanded ransom in the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/-(two lakh) and the complainant/victim was kept in captivation in a farm house. The police recovered the victim and apprehended the other co-accused at the place of captivation, the other three co-accused persons were able to fled away. The accused-appellant was not [2025:RJ-JP:32540] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1443/2025] caught at the site rather he was arrested at the instance of information furnished by other co-accused. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel and after going through the statement of PW-1 Vikas Meena, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the appeal. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases), Bundi is hereby set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Aman @ Lala S/o Ayyub Khan, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 126/2024, registered at Police Station Indargarh, District Bundi shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds 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 accused is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioner on the same day to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the appellant for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /8