[2025:RJ-JP:29582] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1534/2025 Pawan S/o Pannalal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Satasar Police Station Shridungargarh District Bikaner Presently Residing At Lohamandi Panditji Ka Chowaraha Ganesh Nagar 5 Police Station Harmada District Jaipur Rajasthan (At Present Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Khushboo Kothari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/07/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, (Additional Sessions Judge No.2), District Jaipur in Bail Application No.75/2025 (NCV No.125/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.259/2023 registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 366, 343 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) 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 376, 366, 343, 506, 376(2)(n), 354D of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). [2025:RJ-JP:29582] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1534/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that victim is a married lady, aged about 32 years. Learned counsel submits that allegation of commission of rape upon the victim in the sleeper coach is improbable. It is submitted that there is no medical corroboration of the allegations levelled by the victim. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that appellant is in custody since 17.07.2024 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 of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal. 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer of bail made in this appeal. 5. Heard. 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 appellant, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, 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, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 02.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, (Additional Sessions Judge No.2), [2025:RJ-JP:29582] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1534/2025] District Jaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Pawan S/o Pannalal, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.259/2023 registered at Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Rural), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he shall furnish 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-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in the 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 appellant, as directed above. In case the appellant fails to mark his 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 him by this Court. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant appeal (bail) and shall not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /460