[2025:RJ-JP:5290] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2124/2024 Mukesh Kumar @ Subhash S/o Shri Mahaveer, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Balonda, Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP 2. Kaluram S/o Hadman, R/o Baloda Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chouhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/02/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 17.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 180/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302, 201 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections [2025:RJ-JP:5290] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2124/2024] 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302, 201, 149, 365, 506, 120-B of IPC, Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/St Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that name of appellant is Mukesh Kumar @ Subhash s/o Mahaveer whereas in the FIR, name of one Subhash s/o Mahaveer is appearing. The appellant has been arrested on the ground that the appellant is the same person. It is further submitted that another person whose name is Subhash s/o Mahaveer has also been charge-sheeted in this case. Counsel submits that the impugned FIR was registered on the basis of the information furnished by injured-Jethu Ram. During the course of trial, said Jethu Ram & another injured- Ishwar have been examined & they have not alleged anything wrong against the appellant. Counsel also contends that the CCTV footage has also been recovered in this matter wherein appellant is not visible. He argues that out of total 32 cited prosecution witnesses only seven witnesses have been examined till date & thus, trial will take time in its conclusion. Appellant is in custody since 27.05.2024 & there is only one criminal antecedent against him. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. They submit that appellant is named in FIR. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant & learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:5290] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2124/2024] 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, as also considering the statements of injured namely Jeethu Ram & Ishwar, and the fact that only seven witnesses have been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses; trial will take 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. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.08.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Mukesh Kumar @ Subhash S/o Shri Mahaveer, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No. 144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /313