[2025:RJ-JP:32597] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1180/2024 1. Sushila W/o Mangilal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Nagar, Ps Pachewar, Distt. Alwar. (Accused In Women Central Jail, Jaipur). 2. Sajna Devi W/o Jagdish, Aged About 70 Years, R/o 1356, Sikarpura, Govindpura, Pani Ki Tanki Ke Pass, Sanganer, PS Sadar Distt. Jaipur. (Accused In Women Central Jail Jaipur). ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Banwari S/o Lallu Ram, R/o Patalvas, Ps Tunga, Distt. Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.R. Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/08/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk in Bail Application No.26/2024 (CIS No.29/2024) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.82/2023 registered at Police Station Pachewar, District Tonk for the offences under Section 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of [2025:RJ-JP:32597] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1180/2024] investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 203 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that no cogent evidence is available on record against the appellants. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellants are in custody since 12.12.2023 and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for 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 for 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 parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the role attributed to the appellants 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 appellants on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:32597] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1180/2024] 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.03.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Sushila W/o Mangilal, and (2) Sajna Devi W/o Jagdish, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.82/2023 registered at Police Station Pachewar, District Tonk, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them 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. 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 /351