[2025:RJ-JP:33192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 469/2025 Kapil Jindal S/o Shri Dhanesh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Katra Nadbai Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Rajveer Singh S/o Mangturam, R/o Hingoli Kumher Deeg Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhagawat Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/08/2025 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 05.09.2024 passed by learned Special Court, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 336/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.230/2024 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 120B, 506, 34, 420 & 468 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) & 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it has been alleged in the FIR that appellant induced the complainant to give money for ensuring Government employment for his children. It is submitted that except offences punishable under Atrocities Act, all other offences are triable by Magistrate. It is [2025:RJ-JP:33192] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-469/2025] submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that seven other cases have been registered against the appellant wherein bail was granted to him by this court as well as co-ordinate bench of this court. Counsel further submits that appellant is in custody since 13.08.2024 and further custody of the appellant would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made in this appeal and submits that appellant is a habitual offender as seven other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that victim/complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal (bail). 4. Despite information, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the victim/complainant to oppose the prayer for bail made in this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. 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, as also the fact that except offences punishable under Atrocities Act, all other offences are triable by Magistrate and in identical matters, benefit of bail has already been granted to the appellant by this court as well as co-ordinate bench of this court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is about one year, 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 05.09.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST [2025:RJ-JP:33192] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-469/2025] (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bharatpur in Criminal Case No. 336/2024 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Kapil Jindal S/o Shri Dhanesh arrested in connection with FIR No.230/2024 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur, 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 stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. 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 third week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant appeal (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /131