[2025:RJ-JP:33236] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 966/2025 Subedar Singh @ Subesingh S/o Sohan Singh, aged about 35 Years, resident of Pili Pal Ki Dhani Basai Jogiram, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (At present confined in Dist. Jail Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Rajendra Kumar Meena son of Shri Matadeen Meena, aged about 38 years, resident of Basai Jogiyan (Brahmano Ki Dhani), Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sikander Ali Chopdar Mr. Gaurav Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/08/2025 1. Instant appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act in a matter arising out of FIR No. 103/2025 at P.S. Thanagaji, District Alwar for offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(f), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in present case. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring the facts of the case submits that the FIR is registered against three named persons but after investigation, police has found involvement of present appellant accused and filed charge-sheet against him only. He further submits that there is delay in lodging report to police and no specific reason is [2025:RJ-JP:33236] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-966/2025] assigned for delay. He further submits that two injured Neeraj Kumar Meena and Rajendra Kumar Meena were examined by medical jurist and no visible injury is found on body of Rajendra Kumar Meena whereas three injures were found on Neeraj Kumar Meena and one of them is grievous but remaining are simple. He further submits that a cross FIR is also registered for assault by Neeraj Kumar Meena and Rajendra Kumar Meena against the present appellant. He also submits that the disposal of case will take its own time and keeping appellant behind the bars would serve no purpose so he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that injured has suffered grievous injury and present petitioner is responsible for causing the injury. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6 After registration of report on 12.03.2025 about incident of 10.03.2025, the matter is investigated and police has filed a charge-sheet against the present appellant accused but kept pending against two other persons. We have considered material on record and this petitioner accused is in custody since 01.04.2025. 7. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellant can be enlarged on bail. The appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST (PoA) Act is allowed and impugned order dated 08.04.2025 is hereby quashed and the appellant accused Subedar Singh @ Subesingh [2025:RJ-JP:33236] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-966/2025] is released on bail till disposal of criminal case arising out of above mentioned FIR with the condition that he would executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/-with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance in trial court on date fixed by trial court and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- (i). After release of appellant accused on bail, he will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that he is involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. (ii). That he will appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing till the disposal of criminal case. (iii). That if the appellant changes the place of residence, he will give in writing his changed address to the trial Court. (iv). Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. (v). The appellant shall not influence prosecution witnesses in any manner. 8. Misc. Applications, if any, stands disposed of. 9. A copy of this order be sent through E-mail to the trial court. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/266