[2025:RJ-JP:9010] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 450/2025 Battilal Son Of Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Shyamoli Tehsil Malarna Dungar District Sawai Madhopur (Raj) (At Present At District Jail, Tonk) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Dhani Singh Son Of Shri Jayram, Resident Of Roshanpura Police Station Sop District Tonk Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Atar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/03/2025 1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 14(2)(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk in Bail Application (CIS) No.01/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.117/2024 registered at Police Station Sop, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) & 109(1) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. During investigation, offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 119(1), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/5 of Arms Act have been found proved against the appellant. [2025:RJ-JP:9010] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-450/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that appellant has been made accused simply on the basis of pendency of other cases. Counsel submits that other co-accused persons namely Mohit & Ramkesh have been granted bail by this court. He argues that after thorough investigation, charge-sheet has been submitted. It is argued that appellant is in custody since long. Trial of the case will take considerable time 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. He submits that appellant is habitual offender as 18 other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that complainant of this case has duly been informed about hearing of this appeal. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for appellant submits that in eight cases, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial court. 5. Despite information no one put in appearance on behalf of complainant. 6. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the appellant, especially the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this court; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:9010] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-450/2025] 8. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Tonk is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Battilal Son Of Shri Ghanshyam, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR No.117/2024 registered at Police Station Sop, District Tonk, 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. 9. The accused-appellant is directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in the first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the appellant. In case the appellant fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. If breach of this condition 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 the appellant by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /25