[2025:RJ-JP:6790] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 129/2025 Sunita W/o Mahipal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Tola Sehi Police Station Surajgarh District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (Presently Confined In Dsitrict Jail Jhunjhunu ) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor 2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Tarachand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Tola Sehi Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Nandini Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/02/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 343/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.237/2023 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 143 & 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. [2025:RJ-JP:6790] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-129/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the statement of prosecution witnesses, no specific role has been attributed to the appellant. It is submitted that one of the witnesses namely- Satyaveer has been examined during the course of trial and he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that entire prosecution case is based on testimony of Ashok, who is real brother of the deceased. Counsel submits that co-accused persons namely- Rhishabh & Rahish have been granted benefit of bail by this Court by accepting their appeals. Appellant is female who is in custody since her date of arrest. Counsel further submits that none of the accused persons have been granted bail by the learned trial court. Charge-sheet has been filed & trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application and submit that 16 injuries have been found on the person of the deceased. As per the statement of witness Satyaveer, deceased was beaten up in the house of the appellant. It is submitted that there is allegation against the appellant of beating up the deceased. It is further submitted that trial is at fag end as 14 witnesses have been examined out of the 15 cited witnesses. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, [2025:RJ-JP:6790] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-129/2025] especially considering the material made available before me in the form of charge-sheet, statement of prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of trial, so also considering the role attributed to the appellant as well as the fact that trial is at fag end, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the appellant on bail. 6. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /50