[2025:RJ-JP:47348] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2938/2025 Manja Urf Manjay S/o Ramaashrya Mahto, R/o Suroli, Police Station Bhibhitipur, District Samstipur (Bihar), Currently Residing As Tenant At Dheeraj Colony, Santhalka, Bhiwadi. (Raj.) (Accused Appellant Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Gyan Singh D/o Jajiya Ram, R/o Hajiyapur, Thathiya, Kanoj, Uttar Pradesh Currently Residing At Mukut Colony Santalka, Bhiwadi Face Trithiya, Bhiwadi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/11/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Alwar (Raj.) in third bail Application No.394/2025 (CIS No.348/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.293/2022 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi Phase-III, District Bhiwadi for offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections [2025:RJ-JP:47348] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2938/2025] 363, 364, 364A, 307, 302 & 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. On an earlier occasion, criminal appeal for grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.03.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of third victim (“S”). Counsel for the appellant submits that after examination of the third witness, fresh bail application was preferred by the appellant before the learned trial Court, however, same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 16.10.2025, thus, challenging the order dated 16.10.2025, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court praying for grant of bail. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is material contradiction in the testimony of third victim and no trustworthy evidence is available on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime. Counsel further contends that the sole eye-witness of the case is an eight years’ old boy and while accepting the testimony of such witness, the Court is required to be more careful. Counsel submits that the appellant is in custody since 18.10.2022 and trial will take considerable time, thus, further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that after rejection of the earlier appeal for grant of bail, there is no substantial change in the circumstances to entertain the present appeal. It is further [2025:RJ-JP:47348] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2938/2025] submitted that there is specific allegation against the appellant that he along with co-accused committed murder of two minor boys and tried to commit murder of third victim also. Further, apart from this, CCTV footage had been collected by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation, wherein the appellant and co-accused are clearly visible with the deceased boys. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor as well as perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the role attributed to the appellant, as also considering the testimony of the third victim namely ‘S’, so also taking note of CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed. 8. However, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case on or before 30.06.2026. 9. 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 Manoj Solanki/4