Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9677 (RAJ)

SHAITAN SINGH S/O DHULA SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLAS/586/2025 · 2025-03-12

Uma Shanker Vyas

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:11642] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 586/2025 1. Shaitan Singh S/o Dhula Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Devli Khurd Police Station Sendra District Beawar (At Present Accused Appellants Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) 2. Sugan Singh S/o Dungar Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Devli Khurd Police Station Sendra District Beawar (At Present Accused Appellants Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Mangal Chand S/o Goma Ram, R/o Hal Hc 1765 Traffic Beawar Beawar City Beawar Rajasthan Permanent Resident Of Bar Beawar Bar Beawar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 12/03/2025 Learned Public Prosecutor has apprised this Court that compliance of Section 15-A (3) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”) has been made in the present case. [2025:RJ-JP:11642] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-586/2025] The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A of the Act of 1989 has been filed in connection with FIR No.74/2025 registered at Police Station Beawar, District Beawar for the offence under Section(s) 109(1), 121(1), 121(2), 352, 190, 191(2) of BNS, under Section(s) 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Act of 1989 and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellants have been in judicial custody since long and the conclusion of the trial will take long time, hence prays for their release on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. The order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Ajmer is quashed and set-aside [2025:RJ-JP:11642] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-586/2025] and this appeal is accordingly allowed. It is directed that accused-appellants namely (1) Shaitan Singh S/o Dhula Singh & (2) Sugan Singh S/o Dungar Singh shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so and shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C./480(3) B.N.S.S. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J YOGESH KUMAR /584