[2025:RJ-JP:49771] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 2989/2025 Shayal @ Sahil Khan S/o Sheru Khan, Age 18 Year 6 Month R/o Shahi Jama Masjid Ki Gali Kotdi Thana Gumanpura Kota At Present Rented Near Tejaji Chabutra Sindhi Chowk Ki Gali Anantpura Kota Thana Anantpura District Kota. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Monu S/o Ramdayal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 190 Subhash Nagar Anantpura Kota City Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3103/2025 Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Tenant In House Of Badri Patel, Imambada, P.s. Bhimganjmandi, Kota City At Present R/o Bombe Scheme, Opp. Truck Union, Flat No. A-281, P.s. Anantpura, District Kota City (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Monu S/o Ramdayal, R/o 190, Subhash Nagar- Iind, P.s. Anantpura, Kota City. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Faziya G. Khan for Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan in Criminal Appeal No. 2989/2025 Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari in Criminal Appeal No. 3103/2025 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/12/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (2 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] 1. These criminal appeals are filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act in a matter arising out of FIR No. 126/2025 registered at P.S. Anantpura District Kota City for offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(2), 118(2) and 3(5) of BNS and 3(2) (v) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that appellants were falsely implicated in present case and they are quite young in age. He also submits that the disposal of case will take its own time and keeping appellants behind the bars would serve no purpose so they are entitled to be released on bail. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of appellant Shayal @ Sahil Khan while referring statement of PW-1 injured Vishal Paridwal submits that attribution of causing assault by sharp edged weapon is upon Adil Pathan and not upon the present petitioner. She further submits that the present petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2025 and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. She also submits that there was only one injury upon injured Vishal Paridwal and the attribution is upon Adil and not upon present petitioner. She also submits that there is no mention about successive assault upon the injured. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner Adil Pathan while referring the cross-examination of PW-1 injured Vishal Paridwal submits that the admission clearly indicate that in earlier statement he named Shayal @ Sahil Khan for causing assault with sharp edged weapon, but now he made improvement from previous statement and this improvement made him untrustworthy. He also submits that earlier statement Ex.D-2 and P-5, it is mentioned that Shayal @ Sahil Khan has [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (3 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] assaulted the injured and in Ex.P-4, PW-1 has not indicated assault by the present petitioner. He also submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the present petitioner is in custody since his arrest. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He has submitted a report received from PS Anantpura, District Kota City along with intimation to the complainant. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. First bail application in form of criminal appeal of each of appellants was considered by this Court on 03.10.2025 and same was dismissed by this Court observing as under:- “7. On the basis of report dated 29.04.2025 lodged by Monu (brother of injured Vishal) about assault by Adil, Jeevan and two other persons, a report was registered and the matter was investigated. During investigation, statement of Vishal was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. A test identification parade of Adil Pathan and Shayal @ Sahil Khan was conducted by Tehsildar, an Executive Magistrate, Ladpura, District Kota. Present appellants were arrested and charge-sheet was filed against them. There are no criminal antecedents against the appellants. In the report lodged by complainant Monu, allegation is made upon Adil, Jeevan and two others but in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, injured Vishal has named Adil and Sahil for assault. It is also mentioned in the statement that Sahil caught hold of Vishal and Adil assaulted him with a sharp edged weapon. The injury report of Vishal suggested one stitched wound and same was opined as dangerous to life. After statement of injured recorded under Section 180 of BNSS on 20.05.2025, these two appellants were identified [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (4 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] on 10.07.2025 in a test identification parade, though appellants were arrested on 25.06.2025 and during TIP, injured named Shayal @ Sahil Khan as the person who assaulted with a sharp edged weapon. Legally speaking, the statement under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded by Investigating Officer during investigation whereas version of witness was recorded by the person in whose presence identification was conducted. 8. I am of the considered view that both these appellants were named for involvement in the incident and considering the material available on record, it is not appropriate to grant bail to both the appellants-accused as the recovery was effected from Sahil Khan who was not assigned the injury in the statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss these criminal appeals of the appellants-accused at this stage. 10. Accordingly, these criminal appeals filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (POA) Act, preferred by Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammed and Shayal @ Sahil Khan S/o Sheru Khan, are hereby dismissed.” 8. Now the statement of PW-1 Vishal Paridwal, who is injured, is recorded by the trial Court and learned counsel for both the appellants have relied upon the statement of PW-1 for bail. We have considered statement of PW-2 Sumit Singh Solanki. 9. In his statement before the trial Court PW-1 Vishal Paridwal has made it clear that the deadly assault is made by Adil Pathan but appellant Shyal @ Sahil Khan has caught hold of him. This Court while considering first bail application has taken note of the fact that a knife was recovered from Shayal @ Sahil Khan. While submitting charge-sheet, the police has mentioned that Shayal @ Sahil Khan has assaulted Vishal Paridwal with sharp edge weapon and a knife is recovered at the instance of Shayal @ Sahil Khan. There is no recovery from Adil Pathan. The admission in cross- [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (5 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] examination also indicate that PW-1 Vishal Paridwal is not aware about naming Shayal @ Sahil Khan for assault. It means as per FIR, Adil Pathan and Jeevan assaulted with knife on neck of injured Vishal Paridwal and, further, in statement before the trial Court, PW-1 Vishal Paridwal has affirmed the version in FIR that Adil Pathan has assaulted injured Vishal Paridwal. 10. The matter pertains to SC/ST (PoA) Act and same is investigated by an Officer of the rank of Dy.SP but the statement and the material clearly indicate that there is no evidence about deadly assault by Shayal @ Sahil Khan rather he was one of the accomplish, who was present on the spot, which means there was a manipulation by the Investigating Officer. 11. Having considered the totality and facts and circumstances, I am of considered view that this is a fit case to enlarge the appellant accused Shayal @ Sahil Khan on bail but it is not a fit case to enlarge the appellant accused Adil Pathan on bail. 12. Therefore, the appeal filed by the accused appellant Shayal @ Sahil Khan under Section 14-A SC/ST (PoA) Act is allowed and impugned order dated 28.10.2025 is hereby quashed and the appellant accused Shayal @ Sahil Khan S/o Sheru Khan 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:- [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (6 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] (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. 13. The appeal filed by the accused appellant Adil Pathan S/o Shri Atik Mohammad, under Section 14-A SC/ST (PoA) Act is hereby dismissed. 14. Before parting the order, it is appropriate that the issue of manipulation in investigation be inquired and same be brought to the notice of the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, shall appoint an officer not below the rank of DIG to conduct an inquiry against the role of Investigating Officer in diluting the charge against Adil Pathan and also for implication of direct charge upon Shayal @ Sahil Khan both are very serious issues looking to offence under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. [2025:RJ-JP:49771] (7 of 7) [CRLAS-2989/2025] 15. The outcome of the inquiry and possible action against the Investigating Officer Hari Ram Soni, Dy. S.P, be apprised to this Court within three months. 16. Misc. Applications, if any, stands disposed of. 17. A copy of this order be sent through E-mail to the trial court. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/6-7