[2025:RJ-JP:2047] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3263/2024 Ram Chopara @ Baccha S/o Lt Dilip Chopara, Aged About 19 Years, R/o House No. 5 F 8, Bombay Yogana Near Chawla Circle, P.s. R.k Puram Kota (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Dharamchand Bairwa S/o Ramswaroop Bairwa, R/o Tenant At House Of Banwar Bombay Yogana R.k. Puram Kota Permanent Address Dadiya Baroni Tonk (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj) in Bail Application No.320/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.328/2024 registered at Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 118(1), 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS, Section 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(r) of SC/ST Act and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:2047] (2 of 2) [CRLAS-3263/2024] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. Appellant is in custody since 01.10.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time. 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 submits that two life threatening injuries have been found on the person of the injured and both injuries have been attributed to the petitioner. He submits that seven other cases have been registered against the petitioner. He further submits that victim/complainant of this case has been informed about hearing of this appeal and despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the fact that two life threatening injuries was found on the person of the injured and both are attributed to the petitioner and further considering the criminal antecedents of the appellant, I do not find it a fit case to allow this appeal. 6. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. However, observations made herein are only decision of this appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /342