[2025:RJ-JP:38994] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2542/2025 Shahrukh Son Of Abbu Khan, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Manna Ka, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Alwar District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Diensh Chand Son Of Harikishan, Posted As C.I. Police Station N.E.B. Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal 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 has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar in Bail Application No.327/2025 (CIS No.288/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.170/2024 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 189, 224, 225, 307, 332, 353, 336, 504 & 506 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. During the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 189, 224, 225, 307, 332, 353, 336, 504 & 506 of IPC, Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) have been found proved against the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:38994] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2542/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 03.09.2025 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 three other cases have been registered against the appellant. 4. Heard. 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 the parties, as also considering the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and 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. 6. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Shahrukh Son Of Abbu Khan, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.170/2024 registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, District Alwar, shall be released on [2025:RJ-JP:38994] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2542/2025] 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. The appellant is further directed not to contact the victim in any manner. 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 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 him by this Court. 11. 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 /186