[2025:RJ-JP:35313] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3064/2024 Narottam Prajapati S/o Ramkalyan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Lanka Colony Baran Police Thana Kotwali Baran District Baran (Raj) (Presently Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Shri Rambabu S/o Shri Gopal Lal, R/o Kota Road, Krishna Nagar, Baran Kotwali Baran Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/08/2025 1. The instant appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act in a matter arising out of FIR No. 23/2024 at P.S. Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offence under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504, 147, 148, 149, 384 of IPC & Section 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in present case. He also submits that the disposal of case will take its own time and keeping appellant behind the bars would serve no purpose so he is entitled to be released on bail. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that on the basis of report lodged by Ram Babu about assault upon his son Kartik the matter is investigated by police and during [2025:RJ-JP:35313] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-3064/2024] investigation Kartik has expired and the matter is converted to offence under Section 302 of IPC. He further submitted that the complainant has mentioned that he is an eye-witness to the incident but actually he is not an eye-witness rather he planted himself as an eye-witness. He further submitted that during treatment injured Kartik has expired and Section 302 of IPC was added and police has filed a charge-sheet against Narottam, Tej Singh @ Teja, Manish @ Bittu, Rohit @ Bafla and Sunil @ Poksi but kept pending against others. He further submitted that two persons PW-5 Rahul and PW-6 Ashu were mentioned as an eye- witness by police and both have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that both PW-5 and PW-6 have denied presence of complainant PW-1 on spot which is sufficient to show that the complainant is not an eye-witness. He also referred PMR and submitted that ante-mortem injuries, found on body of deceased were result of use of sharp edged weapon but after arrest of present petitioner a pipe was recovered by police. He further submitted that the evidence recorded so far, has not pointed out role and involvement of present petitioner and keeping him behind the bars would serve no purpose. He further referred cross-examination of PW-1 Rambabu father of deceased and submitted that his evidence cannot be read as superior to PW- 5 and PW-6. He also submitted that three accused Rohit @ Bafla Tej Singh @ Teja and Manish Kumar @ Bittu Sharma were granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and disposal of sessions case will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted intimation slip to complainant. [2025:RJ-JP:35313] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-3064/2024] 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. On the basis of complaint lodged by Ram Babu (PW-1) on 06.01.2024 about assault by Narottam and others upon his son Kartik an FIR is registered and after investigation a charge-sheet has been filed. The complainant Rambabu is examined as PW-1 and the evidence suggests that he was an eye-witness though he has not suffered any injury but still the truthfulness of deposition of PW-1 is subject matter of final adjudication. Two other witnesses PW-5 and PW-6 Ashish @ Ashu have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The PMR suggests that injury nos. 1 to 6 and 9 were caused by sharp edged weapon. As per information of doctor injury no.2 is sufficient to cause death which is incised wound on abdomen of Kartik. PW-1 Rambabu has named Surya and Narottam for assault by knife. Learned counsel has submitted that a pipe is recovered from appellant accused and not the knife, as mentioned by PW-1, for assault. 7. A total number of 12 criminal cases were registered against the appellant accused and out of which six were disposed of and six are still pending. It shows criminal antecedent of present appellant, that too when is facing serious charge for assault upon deceased Kartik by Knife. Initially, charge-sheet has not been filed against Surendra @ Surya and it was kept pending. 8. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is not appropriate to analyze and express opinion on grounds raised by learned counsel for appellant but charge upon present appellant is serious in nature and name of appellant is [2025:RJ-JP:35313] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-3064/2024] figured from FIR to statement before the trial court, therefore, it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant accused on bail. 9. Hence, the appeal preferred by appellant accused-Narottam Prajapati S/o Ramkalyan is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /256