[2025:RJ-JP:11763] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 269/2025 Rajveer @ Rajkumar @ Kadda Son Of Manak, R/o Jatouli Thoon Police Thana Sadar Deeg District Bharatpur (Raj) (Currently In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Ramesh Kumar Son Of Sarman, R/o Jatoli Thoon P.s. Sadar Deeg District Bharatpur (Raj) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP Mr. Surendra Singh Mr. Anoop Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 17/03/2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial court’) in Bail Application No. 431/2024 (CIS No. 494/2024), whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant. 2. The appellant has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 340/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar Deeg, District [2025:RJ-JP:11763] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-269/2025] Bharatpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307 and 302 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been involved in this case. It is contended that first appeal of the appellant was dismissed vide order dated 30.01.2024 and second appeal was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.2024, after dismissal of the second appeal the statements of PW-8 Yogendra, PW-10 Kartar Singh and PW-11 Lal Singh have not supported the prosecution story, other witnesses PW-1 Ramesh Kumar, PW-2 Prem, PW-3 Prakash, PW-5 Kalpana, PW-6 Nanaga and PW-7 Chaman Singh, also not supported the prosecution story. Appellant is behind the bar since 23.10.2022, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause any injury or murder of the deceased Sarman, the dispute was between the appellant and Teekam Singh. It is also contended that the fire-arms were also used by the family members of Teekam Singh and death of the deceased Sarman was caused by the fire arm used by family members of Teekam Singh, appellant did not fire at Sarman, therefore, considering the above fact third appeal of the appellant may be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the instant appeal. It is contended that second appeal of the appellant was dismissed after considering the statement of eye witness PW-4 Yogesh. After dismissal of the second appeal, statements of PW-8 Yogendra and PW-9 Teekam have been recorded and they supported the prosecution story. It is [2025:RJ-JP:11763] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-269/2025] also contended that from the appellant’s possession fire arm was recovered, therefore considering the above facts, instant appeal of the appellant may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 6. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, considering the fact that second appeal of the appellant was dismissed after considering the statements of PW-4 Yogesh thereafter the other eye witnesses PW-9 Teekam Singh and PW-8 Yogendra in their examination-in-chief, have clearly stated that the deceased Sarman died due to fire arm injury caused by the appellant. 7. Therefore considering the above fact, this court is not inclined to enlarged the appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, instant third appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /7