[2026:RJ-JP:13448] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2888/2025 Arjun Singh Alias Pappu S/o Meghsingh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Saravali Thana Mandawar District Dausa (Presently, Accused-Petitoner Is Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur) --Accused--Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ....Respondent 2. Ramkhiladi S/o Ramsahay, R/o Gwarki Police Station Balahedi District Dausa --Non-Applicant/Respondent No.2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. T.C. Vyas with Mr. Tanay Jareda HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 1 Arguments concluded on 30.03.2026 2 Judgment reserved on 30.03.2026 3 Full judgment or operative part pronounced Full Judgment 4 Pronounced on 01/04/2026 1. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 14A of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST Act’) on behalf of the appellant, who has been in custody since 16.06.2025 in connection with FIR No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station Mandawar (Dausa), District Dausa, for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 115(2), and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS’). The present [2026:RJ-JP:13448] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2888/2025] appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant for the offences under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 115(2), and 126(2) of the BNS read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was dismissed. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is the sole bread earner of his family, aged about 53 years, earning his livelihood from a tea stall. It was contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present matter and has been languishing in judicial custody since 16.06.2025. It was submitted that the appellant was neither named in the FIR nor in the initial statements of the witness, Ramkhilari, recorded by the police under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’). It was further submitted that no specific or direct role has been attributed to the present appellant towards the commission of the alleged offences. 3. Learned counsel further apprised this Court that an alleged eyewitness to the incident, namely Kuldeep Meena, has merely attributed the role of beating to the appellant, as opposed to the grave allegations of murder under Section 103 of the BNS. It was further submitted that the said contention is also supported and corroborated by another eyewitness, namely Nanakram. 4. It was argued that if the eyewitnesses, who are relatives of the deceased, were aware of all the facts from the inception, the appellant ought to have been named in the FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:13448] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2888/2025] 5. It was lastly submitted that the appellant is ready and willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court while granting the concession of bail to the appellant. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the instant appeal. It was submitted that the allegations of grave and heinous offences have been levelled against the appellant. 7. It was contended that the Call Detail Record (CDR) clearly establish a nexus and provide corroborative evidence linking the appellant with the co-accused persons. It was further submitted that a gas regulator pipe, belonging to the appellant, which was used as a weapon of offence, was recovered from the place of incident. 8. It was urged that the post-mortem report reveals that the deceased suffered multiple injuries. Moreover, it was submitted that the appellant was present at the place of incident during the commission of the said offence. It was lastly submitted that the appellant also has single criminal antecedent, and therefore, the concession of bail should not be granted to the appellant and the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS 9. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length and upon an assiduous perusal of the material available on record, considering the extreme gravity of the offences, and taking note of the fact that the deceased sustained multiple injuries; that there is specific recovery of a regulator pipe prima facie linked to the appellant; that the CDR [2026:RJ-JP:13448] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2888/2025] prima facie establish a co-ordinated nexus between the appellant and the co-accused persons; that there is one criminal antecedent registered against the appellant, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court while dismissing the bail application filed by the appellant. 10. Accordingly, the instant appeal preferred under Section 14A of the SC/ST Act, being bereft of any merit, stands dismissed and the order dated 18.09.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/45