[2025:RJ-JP:10526] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 308/2025 1. Sandeep Son Of Rajpal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bhaloth, Police Station Pacheri Kalan District Jhunjhunu (Presently Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu) 2. Balraj Son Of Surat Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Laxmi Vihar, Rewari Police Station Rampura District Rewari Haryana (Presently Confined In Dsitrict Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Chiman Lal S/o Shri Mool Chand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhani Guman Singh Ki Kotdi Thana Khandela District Sikar (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda Mr. Rahul Singh For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Ramavatar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj) in Bail Application No.18/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.16/2025 registered at Police Station Pacherikalan, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for the offences under Sections 115(2), [2025:RJ-JP:10526] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-308/2025] 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 140(3) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1) (s), 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that appellants are working in a brick kiln namely O.P.Y. Brick Udhyog, Meghpur. Counsel submits that as a matter of fact, a dispute arose between the brick kiln’s owner and complainant when bricks in excess to the bills, were found with the complainant. Counsel submits that in order to implicate the petitioners in criminal case, false and frivolous allegations have been levelled against the appellants. Counsel submits that injuries sustained to the injured are simple in nature. Counsel submits that appellant Sandeep is not named in the FIR. There are no criminal antecedents of appellants. Both are in custody since 21.01.2025 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal. It is submitted that victim was not only kidnapped by the appellants but he was also brutally beaten up. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 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 parties, as also the material available on record in the form case [2025:RJ-JP:10526] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-308/2025] diary; absence of criminal antecedents of the appellants; looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 23.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu (Raj) in Bail Application No.18/2025 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants- (1) Sandeep Son Of Rajpal & (2) Balraj Son Of Surat Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.16/2025 registered at Police Station Pacherikalan, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them 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. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /224