[2025:RJ-JP:9009] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 437/2025 Vikram @ Vicky @ Pauna Son Of Bacchu Singh @ Bhutto, Resident Of Thakur Pada Bari Thana Bari District Dholpur (Accused Is In Judicial Custody At District Jail Dholpur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Amit Son Of Shri Ramprasad, Resident Of Gummat Bari Bari District Dholpur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP Mr. Nasroodeen Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/03/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj.) in Criminal Case No. 09/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.420/2024 registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 307, 352 & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the accused-appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged incident took place on 26.09.2024 while [2025:RJ-JP:9009] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-437/2025] matter was reported to the police on 15.10.2024 for which no proper or plausible explanation is available on record. It is submitted that appellant is not named in the FIR and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that appellant is in custody since 25.12.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal and submit that appellant is a habitual offender as four other cases have been registered against him. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, as also considering the fact that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as 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 appellant on bail. 6. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur (Raj.) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Vikram @ Vicky @ Pauna Son Of Bacchu Singh @ Bhutto, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No. 420/2024 registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur, shall be released on bail, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:9009] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-437/2025] 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 once in every three months, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant, as directed above. In case the appellant fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach 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 him by this Court. 10. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the criminal appeal and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /23