Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30022 (RAJ)

POONAM KUMAR @ PARVAT MEGHWAL SON OF DEVILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/2426/2025 · 2025-09-20

Anil Kumar Upman

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:38964] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2426/2025 Poonam Kumar @ Parvat Meghwal Son Of Devilal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Munderi, Police Station Mandawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail Jhalawar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Jagdish Son Of Nanda, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Ananda, Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) has been filed being aggrieved of the order dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar in Bail Application No.211/2025 (CIS No.151/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.89/2025 registered at Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 140(3), 308(5), 189(2), 189(3), 127(2) & 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). [2025:RJ-JP:38964] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2426/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that in the first round of investigation, negative final report was proposed by the then Investigating Officer. However, later on, Investigating Officer was changed and without any valid reason or ground, arrest of the appellant has been made in this case. It is submitted that basically it was a money dispute which has been given colour of offence under the Atrocities Act which is a sheer abuse of provisions of the SC/ST Act. The appellant is in custody since 26.08.2025 whereas trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal. He submits that the accused petitioner threatened the complainant party to enter into compromise and that is why, under fear and pressure, the complainant gave an application, which is available on case diary that he does not want to pursue the present FIR. He further submits that victim/complainant has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. 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 considering the nature of dispute between the [2025:RJ-JP:38964] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2426/2025] parties; trial will take considerable 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. 7. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhalawar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Poonam Kumar @ Parvat Meghwal Son Of Devilal, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.89/2025 registered at Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalawar shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he shall furnish 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. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the appeal (bail) and shall not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /182