[2025:RJ-JP:5698] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 318/2025 Ramesh Son Of Janak Singh, Resident Of Bateswar Kala Police Station Kanchanpur District Dholpur (Presently Confined In District Jail Dholpur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ramlakhan Son Of Hari Singh, Resident Of Village Bateswar Kalan Police Station Kanchanpur District Dholpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/02/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj) in Bail Application No.196/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.348/2024, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 352, 74 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 117(2) of BNS, 2023 and [2025:RJ-JP:5698] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-318/2025] Sections 3-1(s)(r)(f), 3-2(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. Learned counsel submit that in a cross-case, bail has been granted to the complainant party. The dispute between the parties concerns the use of a public way. According to the impugned order, all other offences except those under the Atrocities Act have been found to be bailable in nature during the course of the investigation. It is argued that appellant is in custody since 16.12.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time. He further argues that further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. She submits that appellant is habitual offender as seven other cases have been registered against him. She further submits that despite information, none has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as also looking to the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties; all other offences for which the appellant was arrested are bailable in nature, except for offences under the Atrocities Act; trial of the case will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without [2025:RJ-JP:5698] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-318/2025] expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 6. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.12.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant – Ramesh Son Of Janak Singh, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.348/2024, Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, 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. 7. However, it is made clear that the appellant shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The appellant is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to appellant by this Court. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of this criminal appeal and would not have any impact or bearing on the trial. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /275