[2025:RJ-JP:39854] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2459/2025 1. Haluka @ Lokendra Singh Son Of Mahtabsingh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Nidhara, Police Station Sadar Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Dis- trict Jail, Dholpur). 2. Guluaram Son Of Lahe, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Nidhara, Police Station Sadar Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). 3. Koki Son Of Vijaysingh, Aged 18 Years 4 Months.resident Of Nidhara, Police Station Sadar Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Rajesh Kuamr Son Of Shri Mathura Lal, Village Post Um- reh Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur At Present Shayak Vanpal Naka Prabhari, Ramsagar, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur - Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anil Jain with Mr. Udit Sapra For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/09/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 173/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.178/2025 registered [2025:RJ-JP:39854] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2459/2025] at Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dholpur for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 281, 125, 351(2), 351(3), 109(1), 303(2), 121(1) & 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Sections 41 & 42 of Rajasthan Forest Act, Sections 4 & 21 of MMDR Act, Section 3 of PDPP Act and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the appellants and none of the injuries sustained to injured has been opined as dangerous to life. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellants are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal. He submits that complainant/victim of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal. 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both [2025:RJ-JP:39854] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2459/2025] the parties, especially considering the material available before me in the form of case diary, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the appellants and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. 7. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants- 1) Haluka @ Lokendra Singh Son Of Mahtabsingh, 2) Guluaram Son Of Lahe and 3) Koki Son Of Vijaysingh, arrested in connection with FIR No.178/2025 registered at Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dholpur, shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /306