[2025:RJ-JP:35326] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3025/2024 Bijjo @ Vijju S/o Mangaliya, R/o Village Bhindipura Police Station Sarmathura District Dholpur ----Appellant/complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Jagdish Prasad Bansal S/o Rambharosi, R/o Pacholi District Karauli Presently R/o Dhobipada Town Sarmathura Police Station Sarmathura District Dholpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ishan Mishra Mr. Rajendra Prasad Jogi for Mr. Aditya Mishra For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/08/2025 1. This appeal under Section 14(2)(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed on behalf of the complainant-appellant being aggrieved of the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.155/2024 whereby the bail application preferred on behalf of the accused- respondent no.2, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.117/2024 registered at Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur for offences under Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015), has been allowed. By way of this appeal, the appellant/complainant has sought cancellation of bail [2025:RJ-JP:35326] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-3025/2024] granted to the accused respondent by impugned order dated 09.10.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submits that the accused respondent no.2, who was familiar to complainant- appellant, borrowed Rs. 17,24,000/- from the appellant while showing personal need for opening a mobile shop and constructing a house. The accused respondent assured the complainant- appellant for returning the aforesaid amount with interest within one year. After lapse of a year, when the complainant-appellant asked the accused respondent to return the amount, he started delaying the payment on one pretext or the other and lastly, he clearly refused to return money to the complainant and instead, he started hurling abuses to him. Learned counsel argues that during investigation, offences under Sections Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (Amendment 2015), have been found proved against the accused respondent. He submits that looking to the nature of allegations, the accused respondent does not deserve indulgence of bail and therefore, the order dated 09.10.2024 whereby his bail application has been accepted by the learned trial court, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there is no criminal antecedents of the accused respondent. He was arrested on 04.10.2024 and now, nothing is to be recovered from the accused respondent. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perusing the material available [2025:RJ-JP:35326] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-3025/2024] on record, I am of the considered opinion that there is no illegality in accepting the bail application of the accused respondent no.2 by learned trial court. Considering the fact that the accused respondent no.2 is in custody since 04.10.2024; completion of trial will take considerable time and no recovery is to be made from him, learned trial court accepted the bail application of the accused respondent. Apart from above, nothing concrete has been brought on record suggesting that the accused respondent has misused the liberty of bail granted to him. Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order dated 09.10.2024. Hence, the instant appeal filed on behalf of the complainant-appellant is dismissed. 5. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant appeal and shall not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /272