[2025:RJ-JP:10482] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 148/2025 Rahul Lodha S/o Jagdish Lodha, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Kacchi Basti, Ganeshpura, P.S. Railway Coloy, Kota. (At Present In Jail At Kota). ----Accused-Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Surendra Meena S/o Durgalal, R/o Rajeev Nagar Kacchi Basti, Ganeshpura, Railway Colony, Kota. ----Complainant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sajid Ali, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj) in Bail Application No.1/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.385/2024 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City for the offences under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later on, Police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 109(1), 3(5), 352, 118(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. [2025:RJ-JP:10482] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-148/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that none of the injuries sustained to injured have been opined as grievous in nature. He argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time. He contends that the appellant is in custody since 18.12.2024 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 and submits that two other criminal case have been registered against him. He further submits that complainant/victim of this case has been duly informed about hearing of this bail application. 4. Despite information, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant. 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 looking to the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as 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, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 04.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant – Rahul Lodha S/o Jagdish [2025:RJ-JP:10482] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-148/2025] Lodha arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.385/2024 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City, 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. 8. It is made clear that the accused-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant, as directed above. In case the appellant fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach 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 him by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/220