[2025:RJ-JP:13829] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1782/2024 Ramesh Chand Gurjar @ Kalu S/o Sharwan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Badh Pithawas, Sirsi Road P.s. Kardhani Jaipur At Present Plot No. 10, Laxmi Vatika Kishorpura Hathoj Kalwar Road, Jaipur (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Smt. Bhuri W/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kishorpura Hathoj Kalwad Road, Kardhani After This House No. 39A, Sumer Nagar Q Block Muhana, Jaipur South (Since Deceased) 3. Mewaram (Son Of Deceased) S/o Harzi Mogya, Dhanna Sasur Ke Pass, Presently R/o Mandi Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur Gramin Permanent Address Chandalai, P.s. Sadar Sanganer Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 26/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.443/2023 dated 21.04.2023, registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Section 307 of IPC against the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Jaipur Metro-I whereby, the [2025:RJ-JP:13829] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1782/2024] bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the case solely rests upon the dying declaration rendered by the deceased. The person who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased is not in the witness list. It is also contended that the fact that the deceased was married with the accused petitioner is also not proved. The son of the deceased has been examined before the Trial Court and in his cross-examination, he has stated that both the hands of the deceased were burnt and she was not in the condition to signs the parchabayan recorded by the concerned ASI. He also stated that he was present at the time of recording of parchabayan. The accused-appellant is in custody since 26.04.2023 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeal of accused-appellant may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and submitted the factual report. The same is taken on record. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant even after due service of notice. 4. The entire case of the prosecution rests upon the parchabayan recorded by the concerned ASI. In the parchabayan, the deceased has stated that the accused petitioner poured the kerosene and lite the fire and thereafter, ran away from the place of occurrence. The concerned ASI has not been examined. It is for the Trial Court to see, whether the witnesses are required to be [2025:RJ-JP:13829] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1782/2024] called or not for their statements, the Trial Court is well under competence to call any of the witness who is required for just decision of the case, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-appellant on bail. 5. Accordingly, the appeal of the accused-appellant is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/230