[2025:RJ-JP:39446] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 2369/2025 1. Ramesh Kumar Urf Chotu S/o Shri Kundan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Titanwad Police Station Gudhagod Ji, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 2. Dalip Singh Son Of Shri Gokul Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Titanwad Police Station Gudhagod Ji, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 3. Ranveer Singh S/o Kishor Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/ o Ward No.11 Sonthli Police Station Gudhagod Ji, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused-Appellants are Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Accused-Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Mahendra Kumar Urf Manoharlal, Aged About 48 Years, R/ o Teetanwar, Gudha Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. ----Complainant/Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain, Adv., with Mr. Mayank Singhal, Adv., & Ms. Soniya Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/09/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu in Bail Application No.08/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of [2025:RJ-JP:39446] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2369/2025] the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.314/2025 registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 351(2), 352 & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and 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 appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that all other offences except the Atrocities Act are bailable in nature. He further submits that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the appellants are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal and submits that seven other cases have been registered against the appellant Ramesh Kumar and four other cases have been registered against the appellant Dalip Singh. He submits that complainant/victim of this case has been duly informed about hearing of this criminal appeal. 4. Despite information, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. 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 appellants, especially the fact that all other offences except the Atrocities Act are bailable in nature and trial of the case will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, [2025:RJ-JP:39446] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2369/2025] but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants – 1. Ramesh Kumar Urf Chotu S/o Shri Kundan Lal, 2. Dalip Singh Son Of Shri Gokul Singh, and 3. Ranveer Singh S/o Kishor Singh arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.314/2025 registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them 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. 8. It is made clear that the accused-appellants shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellants, as directed above. In case the appellants fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:39446] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2369/2025] 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant criminal appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/253