[2025:RJ-JP:2755] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1338/2024 Umashankar Sharma Son Of Gopal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Pili Kothi, Mandawar Road, Mahwa Police Station Mahwa District Dausa (Raj) (At Present Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Smt. Asha Devi Wife Of Shri Ramdayal Meena @ Ramu, Resident Of Saipur, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa (Raj) (At Present Complainant Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/01/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 28.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa (Raj) in Bail Application No.79/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.12/2024 registered at Police Station Balahedi, District Dausa (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 143, 302, 201 & 120B of IPC. Later on, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences 302, 201, 323, 342, 109, 120B & 364 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. [2025:RJ-JP:2755] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1338/2024] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it appears from the conclusion of the charge-sheet that murder was committed by the co-accused Sanjay @ Santosh who was having affair with the wife of the deceased. Counsel submits that FIR was registered on the basis of written report submitted by wife of the deceased and she herself was found involved in the alleged crime. Counsel submits that appellant has been charge-sheeted with the aid of Section 120B of IPC. Appellant is in custody since 09.02.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time. 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 the appellant actively participated in commission of the crime. It is also contended that two other cases have been registered against the appellant. He further submits that informant herself has been found involved in this matter and therefore, there is no need to intimate the informant about hearing of this appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been acquitted in both the cases previously registered against him and presently there is no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:2755] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1338/2024] appellant as also looking to the final conclusion of the investigation as per which, the deceased was throttled by the accused Santosh; investigation has been completed; charge sheet has been filed and trial will take in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is nearly eleven months, 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, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned 28.05.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dausa (Raj) in Bail Application No.79/2024 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Umashankar Sharma Son Of Gopal arrested in connection with FIR No.12/2024 registered at Police Station Balahedi, District Dausa (Rajasthan), 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 appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J LALIT MOHAN /348