Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26515 (RAJ)

SUNIL KUMAR SON OF SHRI KISHANLAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/2110/2025 · 2025-08-27

Anil Kumar Upman

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:34222] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2110/2025 Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Kishanlal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Gay Wala Mohlla, Near Ashoka Tankij Police Station Kotwali District Alwar (Raj) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna with Mr. Prem Prakash Mr. Bholu Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP 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 29.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Bail Application No.249/2025 (CIS No.220/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.527/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 115(2) & 126(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. Investigation is being conducted for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) & 333 of BNS, 2023 and [2025:RJ-JP:34222] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2110/2025] Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 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. It is contended that cross cases have been registered between the parties. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since his date of arrest 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. 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 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 fact that cross cases have been registered between the parties, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellant 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 appellant on bail. 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST [2025:RJ-JP:34222] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2110/2025] (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sunil Kumar Son Of Shri Kishanlal, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.527/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District Alwar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he 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 /284