[2025:RJ-JP:37144] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2902/2024 Shahrukh Alias Minnu S/o Bundu Kha, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nagori Mohalla, Chaksu Police Station Chaksu Jaipur (Rural) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Nirmal Kumar Meena S/o Late Shri Dev Lal Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Meena Ka Mohalla Village Jhalra Post Kakod Polce Station Uniara District Tonk ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP & Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/09/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First (Raj.) in Bail Application No.245/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.301/2023 registered at Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur City (South) (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 324 & 307 of IPC, Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police [2025:RJ-JP:37144] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2902/2024] filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 307, 212 & 326 of IPC, Section 4/25 of Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He contends that there the independent prosecution witness Mohd Mehraj has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. Both injured Akash Meena and medical expert who prepared the MLR of the injured have been examined at trial. The appellant is in custody since 27.06.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration for sufficient time-period and further, conclusion of trial would take considerable time as only four witnesses out of 20 cited witnesses have been examined so far. He argues that only on the basis of previous involvement of the accused appellant, bail has been denied to him by the learned trial court, which is not fair at all. He has placed reliance on judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazim vs The State of U.P. (SLP (Crl.) No.8404/2023 wherein the appellant therein has been granted benefit of bail as there was no progress in trial. The appellant therein has been in custody for more than two and half years in a case under Section 307 IPC. Lastly, he submits that further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. He argues that the appellant is a [2025:RJ-JP:37144] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2902/2024] hardcore criminal as several other cases have been registered against him. He 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 victim/complainant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. In the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor, as also the fact that till date out of 20 cited witnesses, only four have been examined and trial is going on at a snail’s pace; he is in custody since 27.06.2023 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and in view of the order passed in the case of Nazim (supra) 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, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan First (Raj.) in Bail Application No.245/2024 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Shahrukh Alias Minnu S/o Bundu Kha arrested in connection with FIR No.301/2023 registered at Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur City (South) (Rajasthan), 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37144] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2902/2024] 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-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in every week in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and investigating agency. He shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and may not switch off for a longer period intentionally. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 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. 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 appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /46