[2025:RJ-JP:4837] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 82/2025 Sandeepkumar S/o Shri Bagad Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Maliyar Jatt, Police Station Tijara District Khairthal Tijara (Raj) (Currently In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2. Thavar S/o Phool Singh, R/o Maliyar Jatt, Tehsil Tijara District Khairthal Tijara. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma, Adv. for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/02/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)(A) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Alwar in Bail Application No. 621/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.673/2024 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 115(2), 126(2) of BNS, 2023 & Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 118(2), 3(5) of BNS & Sections 3(1)(r)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act (in order). [2025:RJ-JP:4837] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-82/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that one grievous injury has been found on the non-vital part of the body of the injured. Counsel further submits that after investigation, police has submitted the charge-sheet in this matter. Counsel submits that trial of the case will take considerable time. Appellant is in custody since 15.12.2024. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the petitioner has caused a sharp injury on the leg of the victim. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant & learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties; charge-sheet has been filed; trial will take considerable time 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 03.01.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Alwar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Bagad [2025:RJ-JP:4837] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-82/2025] Singh, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No. 673/2024 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi, 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. 7. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The appellant is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in once of every month, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant, as directed above. In case the appellant fails to mark his 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. 9. If breach of any 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 appellant by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Mohita /283