[2025:RJ-JP:8299] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3378/2024 Bablu Prajapati Son Of Shri Chaganlal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Ganaheda, Police Station Bhinai, District Kekdi (Raj). (At Present Petitioner Confined In Centred Jail, Ajmer). ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p. 2. Phootari W/o Sanwarlal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Ganheda, Police Station Bhinai, District Kekdi (Raj). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Govind Upadhyay For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Sainee, PP None present for the complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/02/2025 1. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1151/2024 rejecting bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No.271/2024, Police Station Bhinai, Kekri for offences under Sections 74, 64(1) and 351(2) BNS and Section 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet for offences under [2025:RJ-JP:8299] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-3378/2024] Sections 74, 351 (2) BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act in the court concerned. 3. Arguing the instant appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that initially, FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 74, 64(1) and 351(2) BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act but during course of investigation, offence under Section 64(1) BNS (Section 376 (I) IPC) has not been found proved against the appellant. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned. The appellant is in custody since 25.11.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He thus, craves indulgence of bail for appellant in this case. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the submissions advanced by appellant’s counsel. 5. Despite information, no one on behalf of the complainant/victim side has appeared to oppose the instant appeal. 6. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar as also the fact that during investigation, offence under Section 64(1) BNS (Section 376 (I) IPC) has not been found proved against the appellant; he is in custody since 25.11.2024; investigation has been completed and trial will take time in its conclusion but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the [2025:RJ-JP:8299] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-3378/2024] case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to be released on bail. 7. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 27.11.2024 is set aside and it is ordered that the accused- appellant Bablu Prajapati Son Of Shri Chaganlal who has been arrested in connection with the aforesaid FIR No.271/2024, Police Station Bhinai shall be released on bail during pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes personal bond 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. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for deciding this criminal appeal seeking bail and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir/297