[2025:RJ-JP:11677] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3304/2024 Mukesh S/o Kailash, R/o Village Gamachh, P.s. K Patan, Distt. Bundi (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined At Central Jail Bundi) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Sheela Kumari W/o Praveen, Village Gamachh Keshoray Patan Distt. Bundi (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi (Raj.) in Bail Application No. 336/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.292/2024 registered at Police Station Keshoray Patan, District Bundi for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 64(2)(m), 69, 87 of BNS & Sections 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the victim is a married lady and she was in consensual [2025:RJ-JP:11677] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-3304/2024] relationship with the appellant. He submits that prosecutrix along with her two children, left her matrimonial home on her own & remained in company of the appellant for sufficient time and during this period, she did not make any complaint to anyone or raise any hue and cry. Learned counsel contends that a plain reading of the contents of the FIR clearly indicates that the story narrated in the FIR is highly improbable and absolutely bald allegations have been levelled by the prosecutrix against the petitioner in the FIR. It is also contended that the prosecutrix in FIR and in her court testimony alleged that the accused appellant gave beatings to her but as per her medical reports, no external injury was seen on her person. Further, there is delay in lodging the FIR which also creates doubt on the prosecution case. No obscene video or photos, allegedly prepared by the appellant, are recovered during course of trial. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. There are no criminal antecedents of the appellant. Appellant is in custody since 21.11.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. He submits that complainant/victim of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal. 4. Despite information no one has put in appearance on behalf of victim/complainant to oppose this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:11677] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-3304/2024] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties; as also the fact that the no obscene photos/videos, allegedly prepared by the appellant, have been recovered during investigation; appellant does not have any criminal antecedents; the prosecutrix along with her two children went with the appellant to different places and remained with him for sufficient time and during this period, she did not make complaint to any one; as per medical reports of the prosecutrix, no visible external injury seen on her person and looking to the custody period, 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 05.12.2024 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Mukesh S/o Kailash, arrested in connection with FIR No. 292/2024 registered at Police Station Keshoray Patan, District Bundi, 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 the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. [2025:RJ-JP:11677] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-3304/2024] 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /217