[2025:RJ-JP:40258] (1 of 5) [CRLAS-1878/2025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1878/2025 Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammed, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Tenant In House Of Badri Patel Imambada P.s Bhimganjmandi Kota City At Present R/o Bombe Scheme, Opp Truck Union Flat No. A-281, P.S. Anantpura District Kota City (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Monu S/o Ramdayal, R/o 190, Subhash Nagar Iind P.s. Anantpura Kota City ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2607/2025 Shayal @ Sahil Khan S/o Sheru Khan, Age 18 Years 6 Month R/o Shahi Jama Masjid Ki Gali Kotdi Thana Gumanpura Kota At Present Rented Near Tejaji Chabutra Sindhi Chowk Ki Gali Anantpura Kota Thana Ananatpura District Kota. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Monu S/o Ramdayal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 190 Subhash Nagar Anantpura Kota City Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan with Ms. Faziya G. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/10/2025 1. These two criminal appeals preferred by appellants-accused Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammed and Shayal @ Sahil [2025:RJ-JP:40258] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-1878/2025] Khan S/o Sheru Khan, filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act after dismissal of their bail applications on 07.07.2025/15.09.2025 by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Kota in the matter arising out of FIR No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Anantpura, District Kota City for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated. They further submitted that prima facie, no case for the offence charged is made out against the appellants-accused. They further referred the police investigation and submitted that the appellants are no more required for any investigation as investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. They also submitted that the appellants were arrested on 25.06.2025 and since then, they are in custody. They further submitted that the disposal of case will take its own time and keeping appellants behind the bars would serve no purpose so they are entitled to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Adil Pathan submitted that the incident was occurred on 27.04.2025 for which a report was registered on 29.04.2025 by complainant Monu and in the report, two persons were named with two unknown persons for assault upon injured. He further referred test identification parade of Adil Pathan and submitted that the injured has clearly indicated and named Adil Pathan as the person who accompanied the accused, who assaulted him (injured Vishal Paridwal). He submitted that at the time of identification, injured did not name present appellant as the person who assaulted him. He further referred recovery [2025:RJ-JP:40258] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-1878/2025] memo and submitted that a knife was recovered at the instance of possession of Shayal @ Sahil Khan. He also submitted that there is only one injury upon injured and the assignment is upon Shayal @ Sahil Khan and not upon present appellant. At last, he submitted that present appellant was charged with aid of Section 3(5) of BNS. 4. Learned counsel for appellant Shayal @ Sahil Khan submitted that present appellant is neither named in FIR nor in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS as an accused who assaulted injured with knife. He further submitted that the injured has sustained only one injury and as per statement recorded by Investigating Officer, the injury is assigned upon Adil and not upon present appellant. He submitted that legally, the statement of injured was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, wherein he named Adil for assault by knife and not during test identification parade. He further submitted that the recovery by police is not a deciding factor in the instant case. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. On the basis of report dated 29.04.2025 lodged by Monu (brother of injured Vishal) about assault by Adil, Jeevan and two other persons, a report was registered and the matter was investigated. During investigation, statement of Vishal was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. A test identification parade of Adil Pathan and Shayal @ Sahil Khan was conducted by Tehsildar, an Executive Magistrate, Ladpura, District Kota. Present [2025:RJ-JP:40258] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-1878/2025] appellants were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them. There are no criminal antecedents against the appellants. In the report lodged by complainant Monu, allegation is made upon Adil, Jeevan and two others but in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, injured Vishal has named Adil and Sahil for assault. It is also mentioned in the statement that Sahil caught hold of Vishal and Adil assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon. The injury report of Vishal suggested one stitched wound and same was opined as dangerous to life. After statement of injured recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 20.05.2025, these two appellants were identified on 10.07.2025 in a test identification parade, though appellants were arrested on 25.06.2025 and during TIP, injured named Shayal @ Sahil Khan as the person who assaulted with a sharp edged weapon. Legally speaking, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded by Investigating Officer during investigation whereas version of witness was recorded by the person in whose presence identification was conducted. 8. I am of the considered view that both these appellants were named for involvement in the incident and considering the material available on record, it is not appropriate to grant bail to both the appellants-accused as the recovery was effected from Sahil Khan who was not assigned the injury in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss these criminal appeals of the appellants-accused at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:40258] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-1878/2025] 10. Accordingly, these criminal appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, preferred by Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammed and Shayal @ Sahil Khan S/o Sheru Khan, are hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHARU SONI /87 & 99