[2025:RJ-JP:41966] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1323/2025 Rahul Jaat Son Of Shri Prahlad, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Maholya Ki Dhani, Village Laxmipura Police Station Kotkhawda District Jaipur (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Nanda Ram Meena Son Of Shri Jodharam Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ramjanipura Khodkhawda Jaipur City (South) Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilya, Adv. For State For Complainant : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Manav Sharma with Mr. Rhythm Shrimal for Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, 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.184/2024, registered at Police Station Kotkhawda, Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 103(1), 61(2)(A) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is a young boy, aged 20 years with no criminal antecedents registered against him. It is submitted that charge- [2025:RJ-JP:41966] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1323/2025] sheet has been filed and the appellant is behind the bars ever since 18.07.2024. It is submitted that co-accused (Surgyan Jat) has been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Appeal No.754/2025 vide order dated 28.05.2025, wherein reasoning was given that appellant was attributed a specific role in causing injury. 3. Learned counsel has relied upon the Court statement of PW- 1, wherein during the cross-examination, he has submitted that he was not knowing the appellant- Rahul Jat prior to the alleged incident and on the said date, there was no light/illumination to identify the person. It is also submitted that co-accused (Surgyan Jat) was also involved in the alleged incident. It is also submitted that under the impression of suspicion PW-1 was also in custody for a period of four days. It is further submitted that no identification parade was ever conducted and appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter and that the cause of death is a single injury on head. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal. It is submitted that from the very inception i.e. from lodging of the FIR and till the Court statements and during the examination in chief and the cross- examination, the stance by the prosecution is maintained; wherein appellant is alleged of beating the deceased, whereas the co- accused who has been granted bail was beaten PW-1. It is further submitted that the case in hand is distinguishable from the co- accused Surgyan Jat, who has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the reason of death, as stated in the medical [2025:RJ-JP:41966] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1323/2025] report injury inflicted by an iron rod, for which appellant is specifically alleged in the FIR and later on in the statements tendered before the Court. It is submitted that offence is heinous in nature and hence, the impugned order ought not be interfered with. 5. Heard and considered the matter. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and the fact that the medical report, the contents of FIR and the statements tendered under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Trial Court, categorically supports the story of the prosecution; that the nature of offence is heinous; and that the co-accused who has been enlarged on bail, is on distinguishable pedestal as that of the present appellant; however, without entering into arena of merits, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /306