[2025:RJ-JP:36527] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2351/2025 Harkesh S/o Hukam Singh, R/o Ibrahimpur Kaimari, Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City (Raj.) (At Present Confined At District Jail, Karauli) ----Accused-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor -----Respondent 2. Kalyan Sahay Meena S/o Rampal Meena, R/o Village And Post Rajvas Shersingh, Lawan, Dausa (Raj.) ----Complainant-Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 02.07.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli in Bail Application No.74/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.384/2023 registered at Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 342, 382, 386, 504, 506, 302 & 120B of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). [2025:RJ-JP:36527] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2351/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after rejection of the earlier criminal appeal (bail), some important witnesses have been examined including medical expert thus, this appeal (bail) has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel argues that an FIR was lodged on behalf of daughter of co-accused namely Darshan wherein allegation has been levelled against Saurabh and deceased. Counsel submits that Saurabh has examined during the course of trial as PW-9 and it appears from his testimony that deceased was beaten up by the police and thereafter, he ran away from there so it is clear that appellant and villagers were not involved in beating of the deceased and possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased was beaten by the police personnel. Counsel submits that in defence, a false FIR No. 383/2023 was registered against the appellant at Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City for the offence punishable under Sections 332 and 353 of IPC. He contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 15.09.2023 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal. It is submitted that on an earlier occasion, appeal (bail) preferred on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order 14.03.2024 and as such, there is no material change in circumstances to entertain the present appeal (bail). [2025:RJ-JP:36527] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2351/2025] 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, as also the fact that on an earlier occasion, appeal (bail) preferred by the appellant was considered by this Court and same was dismissed by a detailed order, which reads as under:- “6. There are allegations against the appellants that the deceased Rohit was brutally beaten by the appellants and other villagers and he had been held hostage by them. The police team who reached at the place of incident was not allowed to take custody of the deceased Rohit and after a great hardship, the police team could take the custody of the deceased Rohit and took him to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead. This mob-lynching practice is not acceptable in civilized society at any cost. We are not living in a barbarian society. People are not allowed to take law in their hands so also, they should also not be allowed to create hindrance in working of the police, who in the instant case, reached at the spot but was prevented in discharging their official duties of maintaining law and order situation. The proceedings arising out of FIR lodged by the appellant side against the deceased Rohit for commission of rape upon the minor daughter of appellant would proceed as per law and the appellants cannot be allowed to take shield of said FIR at this stage. The appellant Harkesh is named in the FIR and he was also alleged to have caused beatings to the deceased Rohit in the FIR. There is allegation in the FIR that appellants along with other villagers took law in their hands and committed murder of the deceased Rohit and brushed aside the orders of the police team.” 7. Apart from this medical board has noted as many as 24 injuries on the person of the deceased and it was opined that cause of death was shock as a result of cumulative effect of ante- mortem head injury and multiple injuries sustained on the body of the deceased. [2025:RJ-JP:36527] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2351/2025] 8. In view of above, I do not find any substantial change in circumstances, particularity when each and every aspect was taken into consideration while rejecting the earlier appeal (bail), but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. 9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal (bail) is dismissed. 10. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the criminal appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/64