[2025:RJ-JP:8692] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 504/2025 Deependra@Chintu S/o Jitendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Baloda P.S. Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj) (At Present Confined At District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Kalu Ram S/o Hadman, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Baloda P.S. Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Upendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Mahendra Kumar Chauhan, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/02/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu in Bail Application No.08/2025 (CIS No.08/2025) rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302 & 201 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Charge-sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 302, 149, 365, 506, 201 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. [2025:RJ-JP:8692] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-504/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that impugned FIR was registered only on the basis of information furnished by injured Jethuram. Learned counsel submits that during the course of trial, said Jethuram and another injured witness Ishwar including alleged eye witness Manish, who is son of Jethuram, have been examined and nothing has been alleged by them in their testimony against the appellant, rather Manish has clearly stated that appellant has not committed any wrong to his father. Learned counsel contends that as per the testimony of injured Jethuram, three persons gave beatings to the deceased and their names are Rajveer, Chintu and Praveen. It is contended that some CCTV footage have also been captured during the course of investigation but in these footage, appellant is not visible. It is contended that appellant has been made accused solely on the basis of the fact that vehicle in question wherein deceased was thrown in front of the house of the complainant, was in possession of the appellant. Learned counsel argues that only 7 witnesses have been examined till date out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses. It is argued that other co-accused persons, namely, Mukesh @ Subhash and Aman have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He argues that petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2024. Further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the prayer of bail [2025:RJ-JP:8692] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-504/2025] made in this appeal. They submit that appellant is habitual offender as nine other cases have been registered against him. 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 considering the testimony of injured witnesses namely Jethuram and Ishwar and another eye witness Manish and the fact that only seven witnesses have been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses 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, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Deependra@Chintu S/o Jitendra Singh, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he shall furnish 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. It is made clear that the accused-appellant shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first and third week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:8692] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-504/2025] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /13