HITESH MAKKAD S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA MAKKAD v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLAS/2912/2025 · 2026-01-22
Pramil Kumar Mathur
Criminal Appealbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19360 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 19360 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:2948] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2912/2025 Hitesh Makkad S/o Shri Ramchandra Makkad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o House No. 264, Scheme No.4, Rajendra Nagar, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Alwar. ----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Special Public Prosecutor, Alwar (Rajasthan).
2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Shivlal, R/o House No. 248, Scheme No.4, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Alwar. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta with Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Mr. Sushil Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Akshay Verma Mr. Vishal Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR
Order 22/01/2026
1. This criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Alwar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial court’) in FIR No. 155/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Alwar, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 351(2), 352 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3(1)(x) of
[2026:RJ-JP:2948] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2912/2025] SC/ST Act, 2015, whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material on record.
4.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He again submits that the allegations against the appellant for causing injuries to the victim arose out of a quarrel between the appellant and the victim’s side. The injuries sustained by the victim are simple in nature. It is further submitted that all the Sections invoked under the BNSS are triable by a Magistrate except for the Sections added under the SC/ST Act. He further submits that there is no prima facie evidence which shows that dispute arose on the basis of caste and even as per the allegation contained in FIR do not prima facie constitute the offence under the SC/ST Act. Hence, this Court retains the discretion to grant the anticipatory bail. He places reliance on the judgment of Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India reported in MANU/SC/0157/2020, and submits that on the same footing, a Coordinate Bench has already extended the benefit of bail to the co-accused Dheeraj Makkad vide order dated
27.05.2025. Therefore, the appeal presented by the present appellant may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the appeal. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case,
[2026:RJ-JP:2948] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2912/2025] I deem it just and proper to allow the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(1) of SC/ST Act is allowed and order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned trial court is set aside.
it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the appellant-Hitesh Makkad S/o Shri Ramchandra Makkad, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the appellant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Chandan/222