[2025:RJ-JP:47201] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2800/2025 1. Baula S/o Jango, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Bhadeera, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. 2. Ajay S/o Baula, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bhadeera, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Appellants Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. ....Respondent 2. Pushpendra S/o Deewan Singh, R/o Village Bhadeera, Tehsil And Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. ----Respondent/Complainant For Appellant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal with Ms. Saroj Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 21/11/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 0278/2025 Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 303(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant No.1, namely Baula S/o Jango, after arguing for sometime wants to withdraw the instant appeal, making a limited prayer that the appellant be permitted to surrender before the learned Trial Court, and appropriate directions may be passed to consider the plea of the appellant on the same date as of surrender. [2025:RJ-JP:47201] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2800/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has not objected the aforementioned prayer. 4. Having heard the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the appellant No.1 and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking note of the limited prayer made by the learned counsel, however without commenting anything upon the merits/demerits of the case, the instant appeal qua appellant No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn; with a direction that the accused- appellant shall surrender himself before the learned Trial Court concerned. 5. The learned Trial Court is directed to consider the application so moved, or plea so made by the surrendering accused-appellant on the very same date. It is further clarified that no prejudice shall be caused to the present appellant on account of the said withdrawal. 6. The appellant shall be at liberty to argue the matter before the learned Trial Court, by placing reliance on the case of the co- accused. 7. Learned counsel for accused-appellant No.2, namely Ajay S/o Baula, has submitted that the appellant is a government servant and is presently posted at Sawai Madhopur. It is further submitted that, as stated in Ground-E of the instant appeal, the appellant No. 2 has wrongly been implicated in the matter, as he was not present at the place of occurrence, and the same is corroborated by official attendance record of the appellant. It is further submitted that the present appellant was not present in Nadbai, at the time of alleged incident, and was discharging [2025:RJ-JP:47201] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2800/2025] official duties at Sawai Madhopur, which is approximately 200 kilometers away from the place of alleged incident. 8. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the appellant No.2, namely Ajay was not present at the place of the incident and was discharging official duties, approximately 200 kilometers away from the place of incident, and the same is corroborated by official attendance record of the said appellant. Consequently, the instant appeal qua the appellant No.2 is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bharatpur in Bail Application No.301/2025 (CIS No.339/2025) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant No.2- Ajay S/o Baula arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he 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. 9. In the meantime, the concerned Investigating Officer is directed to procure the attendance record of the appellant No.2, upon which the reliance has been placed to state the fact that the appellant was not present at the place of alleged incident on the specified day, as per ground E of the instant appeal. It is further directed that after asserting bona fide, no coercive action shall be taken qua the appellant No.2, namely Ajay S/o Baula. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/226