[2025:RJ-JP:33237] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1298/2025 1. Monu Singh Parmar Son Of Rajveer Singh Parmar, Resi- dent Of Railway Station Ke Pass Badi Police Station Badi District Dholpur (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur) 2. Sonu Parmar Son Of Rajveer Singh Parmar, Resident Of Railway Station Ke Pass Badi Police Station Badi District Dholpur (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ramveer Son Of Baleram, Resident Of Village Kaspura Po- lice Station Kanchanpur Dholpur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/08/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 68/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.110/2025 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(1) & 351(3) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). [2025:RJ-JP:33237] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1298/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that all the offences except offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are bailable in nature. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Appellants are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal and submits that appellants are habitual offender as several other cases have been registered against them. He further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. 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 fact that all the offences except offence punishable under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are bailable in nature; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion 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 appellants on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:33237] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1298/2025] 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Criminal Case No. 68/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants 1) Monu Singh Parmar Son Of Rajveer Singh Parmar & 2) Sonu Parmar Son Of Rajveer Singh Parmar arrested in connection with FIR No.110/2025 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur, shall be released on bail, provided each of them 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-appellants shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellants, as directed above. In case the appellants fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. If any breach 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 them by this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:33237] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1298/2025] 12. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /132