[2025:RJ-JP:48769] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2746/2025 Bhim Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bam- buli, P.s. Devli-Manjhi, District Kota (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central-Jail Kota) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Rajkumar S/o Late Ramvilas, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bambuli, P.s. Devli-Manjhi, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Panwar For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Jitesh Kumawat for Mr. Pradeep Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/12/2025 1. Defect(s) pointed out by the Registry are overruled. 2. The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed being aggrieved of the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota (Raj.) in Criminal Case No.177/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.162/2023 registered at Police Station Devli Manjhi, District Kota Rural for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 & 143 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable [2025:RJ-JP:48769] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2746/2025] under Sections 341, 323, 504, 302, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties and appellant himself sustained injury. It is submitted that till date, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 18 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that material witnesses mentioned in the FIR have been examined during the course of trial and there is no likelihood of tampering with the evidence. It is contended that there is no allegation against the appellant of causing fatal injury on the person of the deceased. Counsel relies upon the order dated 15.02.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11714/2022 titled as Mukesh Kumar Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr. wherein in identical facts and circumstances, benefit of bail was extended to the accused after considering the period of incarceration of 14 months. It is submitted that the question as to who was the aggressor will depend upon the appreciation of evidence and will be decided by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellant is in custody since 04.10.2023 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than two years. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:48769] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2746/2025] 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made in this appeal. They submit that appellant actively participated in commission of crime. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties and the appellant himself sustained injury, as also considering the fact that there is no allegation against the appellant of causing fatal injury on the person of the deceased, so also considering the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mukesh (supra) and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is more than two years, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.09.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Kota in Criminal Case No.177/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Bhim Singh S/o Prahlad Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.162/2023 registered at Police Station Devli Manjhi, District Kota Rural, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the [2025:RJ-JP:48769] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2746/2025] stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /5