[2025:RJ-JP:36319] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1977/2025 Naveen Kumar @ Kishore Son Of Gaurishankar, Resident Of Dharamshala Beri Police Station Dadiya District Sikar Rajasthan (At Present Lodged At Central Jail Ajmer Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor 2. Shankarlal Son Of Ramchandra, Resident Of Mehnat Nagar, Madanganj Ajmer Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Sanjay Mehrish, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/08/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 20.06.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in Sessions Case No.170/2022 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.137/2022 registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer for offences under Sections 342, 365, 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 3(2) and 3(v) 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 342, 365, 392, 302, 323 and 364 of IPC and Sections 3(2) [2025:RJ-JP:36319] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1977/2025] (v) and 3(2)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence but there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the appellant. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Learned counsel contends that appellant is in custody since March, 2022 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. They submit that there is ample evidence available on record against the appellant. As per CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation, deceased was lastly seen in the company of the appellant. It is submitted that ornaments belonging to the deceased have also been recovered at the instance of the appellant. Besides this, there are four other criminal antecedents registered against the appellant. Trial is at fag end as most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined at trial. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced at bar as well as looking to the fact that prima facie, record reveals that in the CCTV footage, the deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellant and thereafter deceased was not seen alive; trial is at fag end and four other cases have [2025:RJ-JP:36319] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1977/2025] been registered against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. Hence, the instant appeal filed on behalf of the complainant-appellant is dismissed. 6. 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 /72