[2025:RJ-JP:39279] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2859/2024 Manbharbai W/o Late Laddulal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Moreli Police Station Pali, District Baran (Raj) Presently R/o Krishan Vi- har Colony, Chhabra Police Station Chhabra District Baran (Raj) (Currently In Judicial Custody At Women Cell Baran) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ramdayal S/o Rodilal, R/o Krashan Vihar Colony Chhabra Police Station Chhabra District Baran (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dikshant Jain with Mr. Anurag Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 239/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.203/2023 registered at Police Station Chhabra, District Baran for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that appellant is female and she is in custody since 29.05.2023. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the [2025:RJ-JP:39279] (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2859/2024] appellant and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. In these circumstances, particularly looking to the fact that appellant is female, benefit of bail may be extended to her. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that co-accused person namely Omprakash has been denied benefit of bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court and case of the present appellant is also on similar footing. It is submitted that appellant is wife of the deceased and her husband died in her presence. It is submitted that trial is at fag end as only two prosecution witnesses are to be examined. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that appellant was present in the house at the time of death of her husband, as also the fact that similarly situated co-accused person has already been denied benefit of bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court, so also the fact that trial is at fag end as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. 6. Accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /158