Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2533 (RAJ)

RAVINDRA BAGHELA SON OF RAMESHCHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/25/2025 · 2025-01-20

Anil Kumar Upman

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:2778] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 25/2025 1. Ravindra Baghela Son Of Rameshchand, 2. Davendra Singh Son Of Mahesh Kumar, Both Resident Of Bateswar Kalan, Police Station Kanchanpur District Dholpur (Presently Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Accused-Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Non-petitioner 2. Ramlakhan Son Of Hari Singh, Resident Of Village Bateswar Kalan Police Station Kanchanpur District Dholpur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP and Mr. Dushyant Jain, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/01/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj) in Bail Application No.196/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.348/2024, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 352, 74 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST [2025:RJ-JP:2778] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-25/2025] (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 117(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3-1(s)(r)(f), 3-2(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. He further submits that in a cross-case, bail has been granted to the complainant party. The dispute between the parties concerns the use of a public way. According to the impugned order, all other offences except those under the Atrocities Act have been found to be bailable in nature during the course of the investigation. He argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants and trial of the case will take considerable time. He further argues that the appellants are in custody since 16.12.2024 and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties as also looking to the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties; all other offenses for which the appellants were arrested are bailable in nature, except for [2025:RJ-JP:2778] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-25/2025] offenses under the Atrocities Act; absence of criminal antecedents and trial of the case will take time 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, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants – 1. Ravindra Baghela Son of Rameshchand and 2. Davendra Singh Son of Mahesh Kumar arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.348/2024, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them 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 this criminal appeal and would not have any impact or bearing on the trial. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/375