[2025:RJ-JP:10521] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 184/2025 Kuldeep Singh @ Kedi Son Of Late Kesar Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Behind Ranisati Temple Near Panchayat Bhawan Village Jhajhad Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (Presently Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ravi Chouhan Son Of Gangaram, Ward No. 19, Nawalgarh Jhunjhunu (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. O.P. Jhajhria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Bail Application No. 02/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.409/2024 registered at Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 115(2), 110, 324(4), 307 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023 and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(s) & 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(7), 115(2), 117(1), 110, 324(4), [2025:RJ-JP:10521] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-184/2025] 307 & 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2018. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that injuries sustained by the injured are on non-vital part of the body. He contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Appellant is in custody since 11.12.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. It is submitted that appellant is a habitual offender as 19 other cases have been registered against him and in one case he has been convicted vide judgment dated 13.08.2015 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that petitioner has been acquitted in that case by Hon’ble Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 14.12.2017. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 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 both the parties, so also considering the nature of injuries and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 09.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST [2025:RJ-JP:10521] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-184/2025] (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Kuldeep Singh @ Kedi Son Of Late Kesar Singh, arrested in connection with FIR No.409/2024 registered at Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu, 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. 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 in first & third week of every month, 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 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 him by this Court. 11. The observation made herein above 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 /222