[2025:RJ-JP:2555] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3355/2024 1. Hanuman Son Of Shri Narayan, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Khediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur) 2. Deyalram Son Of Shri Ratanal, Resident Of Kjhediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp 2. Sumandevi Wife Of Late Shri Sohanlal, Resident Of Khediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3247/2024 1. Narayan Son Of Shri Bannaram, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of Khediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur) 2. Ratanlal Son Of Shri Bannaram, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Khediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp 2. Sumandevi Wife Of Late Shri Sohanlal, Resident Of Khediram Police Station Phulera District Jaipur Rural ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, PP, Mr. Sikandar Singh Sakkarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 17/01/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:2555] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-3355/2024] 1. These instant appeals have been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.232/2024 dated 01.11.2024, registered at Police Station Phulera (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for the offences under Sections 352, 115(2), 3(5), 332(c), 351(2), 125, 108, 331(5) & 338 of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of ST/SC (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 13.11.2024 and 08.11.2024 respectively, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Jaipur District Jaipur whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants were rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the case. Counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that there is no evidence on the record that soon before the death of the deceased, the deceased was subjected to abatement or the accused-appellants instigated the deceased to commit the suicide. In the suicidal note left by the deceased, the deceased has clearly stated that the accused-appellants were threatening his brother Ashok to bear the consequences. The suicidal act of the accused-appellants is not within the purview of Section 108 of the BNS. It is further contended that the incident occurred between the accused- appellants and the complainant party due to fight broke between their kids and on intervention some altercation took place. On 01.11.2024 the deceased committed suicide. The injuries sustained to injured Ashok who is brother of the deceased was found to be simple in nature. There is are criminal antecedents [2025:RJ-JP:2555] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-3355/2024] against the accused-appellants barring the present case. The accused-appellants is in custody since long and charge-sheet has already been produced before the Court below. The trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeals of accused-appellants may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent/complainant vehemently opposes the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that on 30.10.2024, the incident took place between the accused- appellants and the deceased Sohanlal and Ashok, and thereafter Ashok was assaulted by the accused-appellants. These matters were compromised between the parties, thereafter, the accused- appellants again threatened the deceased Ashok to bear the consequences and on 01.11.2024, the deceased Sohanlal committed suicide. It is also contended that the deceased in the suicidal note has clearly mentioned that the accused-appellants were threatening his brother Ashok to bear the consequences. The narration of this fact itself constitute offences against the accused- appellants under Section 108 of BNS. It is further contended that, if the accused-appellants are allowed on bail then they may temper with the evidence and threaten the witnesses to sabotage the prosecution case, therefore, the appeals of accused-appellants may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellants and after going through the suicidal note, [2025:RJ-JP:2555] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-3355/2024] without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the appeals. 7. Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 13.11.2024 and 08.11.2024 respectively, passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Jaipur District Jaipur are set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants namely:- 1. Hanuman Son Of Shri Narayan, 2. Deyalram Son Of Shri Ratanal, 3. Narayan Son Of Shri Bannaram and 4. Ratanlal Son Of Shri Bannaram, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.232/2024 dated 01.11.2024, registered at Police Station Phulera (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds 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. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/71-72