[2026:RJ-JP:29886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 920/2026 CNR: RJHC020389082026 | URN: CRLAS / 1724U / 2026 1. Vimla Wife of Badriprasad, R/o A-114, Mangeram Park, Phase2, Budhbihar, C-Block, Police Station Budhbihar, North-West Delhi. (At Present Confined in Central Jail Jaipur) 2. Kavita Singh W/o Vikram Singh, R/o 2/18, Block J-2, Near Ankit General Store, Krishna Bihar Sultanpuri, C-Block, Police Station Sultanpuri, North-West Delhi, Presently Re- siding At E-101 Tenant Mukesh Krishna Bihar Sultanpuri, C-Block, Police Station Sultanpuri, North-West Delhi. (At Present Confined in Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellants Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Jeevanram, R/o Dugoli, Sadar Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal with Mr. Sushil Pujari & Mr. Hitesh Haritwal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Shubham Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/08/2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 13.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Raj.) in Bail Application CIS Nos.265/2026 and 270/2026 (CNR Nos.RJSK01-001053-2026 and [2026:RJ-JP:29886] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-920/2026] RJSK01-001068-2026) rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.125/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 316(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 61(2), 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(2)(b), 111(3) & 111(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. On an earlier occasion, criminal appeals (bail) filed on behalf of the appellants were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the complainant. Thereafter, fresh bail applications were filed by the appellants before the learned trial Court and same were dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 13.04.2026. Now, this criminal appeal (bail) has been filed on behalf of appellants. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that one of the co-accused Munshiram Bhaladar whose criminal appeal (bail) was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 07.02.2026, approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8565/2026. Counsel submits that the said Special Leave Petition (Criminal) was considered and accepted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.07.2026 and co-accused Munshiram Bhaladar was [2026:RJ-JP:29886] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-920/2026] granted benefit of bail on the ground that he has suffered incarceration of more than one year and charges against him are triable by Magistrate. Counsel submits that it was further observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the trial has commenced but only five witnesses have been examined out of twenty seven prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that appellants are in custody since 19.06.2025 and as such, they have suffered incarceration of more than one year and one month and further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the present criminal appeal may be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted that the appellants and co-accused person acted in a very planned manner and cheated the complainant, therefore, the present criminal appeal may be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 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, especially considering the material available on record, as also considering the fact that co-accused Munshiram Bhaladar has already been granted benefit of bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court; till date, only five witnesses have been examined out of [2026:RJ-JP:29886] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-920/2026] twenty seven prosecution witnesses and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellants on bail. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.04.2026 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sikar (Raj.) in Bail Application CIS Nos.265/2026 and 270/2026 (CNR Nos.RJSK01-001053-2026 and RJSK01-001068-2026) is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants (1) Vimla Wife of Badriprasad & (2) Kavita Singh W/o Vikram Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.125/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Sikar, District Sikar (Rajasthan), shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the appeals (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 6/LALIT MOHAN