[2025:RJ-JP:41967] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2367/2025 Devendra Son Of Ramesh Chand, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Raskheda, Police Station Anta, District Baran. (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota Rajasthan) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Sunil Bairwa Son Of Ramkishanbairwa, Resident Of Near Devnarayanmandir, Nayagaon, Police Station R.k. Puram, Kota City. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nadeem Qadeer, Adv. For State For Complainant : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP, Mr. Anirudh Singh Mr. Shailendra Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 14/10/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 140/2025, registered at Police Station Anantpura, Kota City for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 109(1), 119(2) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has also suffered injury at the time of the incidence and during arrest, moreover, police authority has refused to register the complaint at the said time. It is further submitted that the appellant is behind bars ever since 20.05.2025. It is lastly [2025:RJ-JP:41967] (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2367/2025] submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal and have submitted that there are thirteen criminal antecedents registered against the appellant under similar offence and more serious offence. It is further submitted that not only a blunt weapon was used but a sharp knife was also used in the crime. It is additionally submitted that an obscene video clip was made viral, and the said contention is also supported by the statement tendered by the Sunil Bairwa. 4. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking note of the fact that there are thirteen criminal antecedents registered against the appellant; that an obscene video clip of the complainant was made viral, therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting anything on merit s/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal. 5. Present appeal is accordingly, dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /307