Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24635 (RAJ)

SAURABH S/O CHAGANLAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/1909/2025 · 2025-09-20

Anil Kumar Upman

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:38941] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1909/2025 Saurabh S/o Chaganlal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Gas Plant, Aanwali, Nayagav, P.s. R. K. Puram, Kota. (At Present Cen- tral Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Aakash S/o Bablu Bairwa, R/o Devnarayan Mandir Ki Gali, Aanwali, R.k. Puram, Kota City (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj.) in Bail Application (CIS) No. 119/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.90/2025 registered at Police Station R.K.Puram, District Kota City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(2) [2025:RJ-JP:38941] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1909/2025] (v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is omnibus allegation against the appellant and allegation of causing life threatening injury on the person of the injured is against the co-accused Prince. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedent of the appellant and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 25.04.2025 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal and submits that appellant is duly named in the FIR and he actively participated in commission of crime. He further submits that victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 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 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 parties, especially considering the fact that allegation of causing life threatening injury is against the co-accused Prince; charge- sheet has been filed in this matter; there are no criminal antecedents of the appellant and trial will take considerable time [2025:RJ-JP:38941] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1909/2025] in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 order dated 05.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj.) in Bail Application (CIS) No. 119/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused- appellant Saurabh S/o Chaganlal arrested in connection with FIR No.90/2025 registered at Police Station R.K.Puram, District Kota City (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 observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /165