[2025:RJ-JP:6199] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3363/2024 Mahesh Son Of Harvilas, Resident Of Darvesha Police Station Basedi District Dholpur At Present Lodged In The District Jail, Dholpur ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Manish Kumar Son Of Khyali Ram, Resident Of Koli Ka Adda Timasiya Basedi District Dholpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Bail Application No.180/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.240/2024 registered at Police Station Basedi, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 504 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. Charge-sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 323, 341 & 384 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended [2025:RJ-JP:6199] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-3363/2024] that earlier FIR No.136/2024 was lodged by the same complainant against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 504 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act wherein bail was granted to the appellant vide order dated 03.12.2024. It is submitted that present FIR was lodged on 21.05.2024 alleging therein that now appellant is making pressure upon the complainant to compromise the matter. Learned counsel contends that except offences under Atrocities Act, all the offences are bailable in nature. It is contended that appellant is in custody since 22.11.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor oppose the prayer of bail made in this appeal. He submits that appellant is habitual offender as 29 other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that despite information, none has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose this appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 24 cases have been disposed of out of 29 cases. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as also considering the fact that appellant is in custody since 22.11.2024; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without expressing any opinion on [2025:RJ-JP:6199] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-3363/2024] merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Consequently, these instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Mahesh Son Of Harvilas, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.240/2024 registered at Police Station Basedi, District Dholpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he shall furnish 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. 8. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The appellant is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on 25th of every month, till trial is concluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to appellant by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /219