[2025:RJ-JP:51978] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 3330/2025 Naveen Kumar Alias Dhillu S/o Dalip Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Dhobda Police Station Surajgarh District Jhunjhunu (At present accused confined in Distict Jail, Jhunjhunu). ----Accused-Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor ----Respondent 2. Sachin S/o Raju, age about 25 years, R/o Ward No.12, Subhash Dhani, Loharu, District Bhiwani (Haryana). For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Garssa For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. MS Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/12/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2)SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj) in Criminal Misc. (Bail Application) No.337/2025 (CIS No.87/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.326/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’) and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5), [2025:RJ-JP:51978] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-3330/2025] 115(2) & 109(2) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2) (va) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that first prayer for grant of bail was refused by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 by giving liberty to make prayer of bail before trial court after recording testimony of the injured witness namely Kartik @ Sunda as well as Investigating Officer of this case. Counsel submits that after recording testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, fresh bail application under section 483 of the BNSS was filed before the trial Court but same was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 08.12.2025. Hence, this appeal has been filed before this Court. 3. Counsel submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses would reveal that there is no evidence available on record against the appellant Counsel submits that his name is not in the FIR and there is no clear allegation of murder against him. He has been arrested in this case without any evidence and he has been in custody since 08.11.2024. He also argues that nothing has been recovered from the appellant except his own pick-up vehicle and recovery of the vehicle has no significance in this case because the mechanical report of the vehicle shows that there was no collision with that vehicle as no collision marks were found on the vehicle and this fact has been admitted by the Investigating Officer in his cross examination. Injured witness has admitted the fact that appellant was shown to him in the police station. However, no memo of TIP is available on [2025:RJ-JP:51978] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-3330/2025] record. Trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future. Counsel submits that till November, 2025, only three witnesses have been examined out of seventeen cited prosecution witness. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Investigating officer of this case is present in person and under his instructions, learned State Counsel submits that the appellant's argument that his name is not in the FIR is absolutely wrong. The name of appellant has wrongly been mentioned as Tillu in the FIR who actually is appellant Naveen @ Dhillo as the name of the father of both Tillu / Dhillu is Dilip Singh. He further submits that the police came to know from their reliable sources that the deceased and two others were riding a motorcycle with loud noise outside the house of the appellant due to which the appellant lost his temper and drove his pick-up vehicle to chase and hit them with great force due to which Satish died. They further argued that on the basis of the information given by the appellant, his pick-up vehicle has been recovered and prosecution story has been confirmed by a witness because after the murder, the appellant's vehicle got stuck on the unpaved dirt road and the appellant called him over the phone to get it out. The trial in this case, where a person lost his life is still in its initial stage and the evidence of crucial witnesses is yet to be recorded. He further submits that complainant of this case has been duly informed about hearing of this appeal. 5. Despite information, no one has appeared on behalf of the complainant to oppose this appeal. The intimation report dated [2025:RJ-JP:51978] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-3330/2025] 18.12.2025 received from the SHO, PS Surajgarh is hereby taken on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the material available on record including testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses and the fact that petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2024, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 8. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.12.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) in Misc. Bail Application No.337/2025 (CIS No.87/2025) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Naveen Kumar Alias Dhillu S/o Dalip Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.326/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees Only) and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MANOJ SOLANKI/S-553