[2025:RJ-JP:23599] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1599/2025 Chauthmal Kashyap Son Of Nandkishore, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Subhash Colony Jhalawar Police Station Kotwali Jhalawar District Jhalawar At Present Lodged In The District Jail Jhalawar ----Appellant/Accused Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Rakesh Son Of Shri Dhan Singh Jatav, Resident Of Chakjavajipur Khera Shajapur Kotali Shajapur Madhya Pradesh ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN (V. J.) Order 26/06/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 21.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar (Raj) in Bail Application No.124/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.442/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhalawar for the offences punishable under Sections 365 & 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & 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 [2025:RJ-JP:23599] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1599/2025] under sections 302, 364, 201 & 120B of IPC, sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) and sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that complainant of this case has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that other co- accused persons of this case have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He argues that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 20 witnesses have been examined out of 70 cited prosecution witnesses. He contends that the appellant is in custody since 23.07.2023 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal however, fairly concedes that complainant of this case has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Counsel further submits that complainant/victim 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 complainant/victim to oppose the prayer for bail. 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 the fact that complainant of this case has [2025:RJ-JP:23599] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1599/2025] been declared hostile 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 21.05.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant – Chauthmal Kashyap Son Of Nandkishore arrested in connection with FIR No.442/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhalawar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he 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. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant criminal appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN (V. J.)),J YOGESH/121