[2026:RJ-JP:3418] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3251/2025 Vikram Son Of Teekam, R/o Ibrahimpur Tan Kaimari, P.s. Nadauti, District Gangapur City (Raj.) (At Present Confined At District Jail Karauli) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Kalyan Sahay Meena Son Of Shri Rampal Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Rajvas Sher Singh, P.s. Lawan, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3143/2025 Darshan Singh Son Of Teekam, R/o Ibrahimpur Tan Kaimari, P.s. Nadauti, District Gangapur City (Raj.) (At Present Confined At District Jail Karauli) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Kalyan Sahay Meena Son Of Shri Rampal Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Rajvas Sher Singh, P.s. Lawan, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/01/2026 1. The Criminal Appeal (No.3251/2025) has been preferred on behalf of the appellant Vikram whereas the Criminal Appeal (No.3143/2025) has been preferred on behalf of the appellant [2026:RJ-JP:3418] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-3251/2025] Darshan Singh under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act being aggrieved of the order dated 19.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Karauli (Raj) in Criminal Misc. Case No.145/2025 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.384/2023 Police Station Nadoti, District Gangapur City for offences under Sections 147, 149, 342, 382, 386, 504, 506, 302 & 120B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 147, 342, 386, 504, 506, 302, 149 & 120B of the IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. On earlier occasion, criminal appeal (bail) filed on behalf of the appellants was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 14.03.2024. Thereafter, another criminal appeal (bail) was filed on behalf of appellant- Darshan Singh however, same was also dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 03.09.2025. Now, these criminal appeals (bail) have been filed on behalf of the appellants. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellants that appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that as a matter of fact, the deceased Rohit had come to the house of the appellants Darshan and Vikram, both sons of Shri Tikam and committed rape upon minor daughter of the appellant Darshan and when she raised hue and cry, he tried to escape from there but he slipped and sustained injuries. It is submitted that in [2026:RJ-JP:3418] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-3251/2025] connection with the aforementioned incident, FIR No.385/2023 was also registered in the same police station for offences under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act and during investigation, these offences have been found to be proved against deceased Rahul. It is also contended by learned counsel representing the appellants that as per the statements of the police officers recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it can be gathered that as soon as they reached the place of incident, they found that Rohit was already beaten up by the villagers and thus, there is no eyewitness saying that the appellants were involved in commission of the alleged crime. Counsel submits that material witnesses have been examined during the course of trial and they have not alleged anything against the appellants. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that appellants are in custody since 30.10.2023 and as such, they have already suffered incarceration of about 2 years and 3 months. Further custody of the appellants would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposes the submissions advanced by appellants' counsel. It is submitted that on earlier occasion, criminal appeals (bail) filed on behalf of the appellants were dismissed by this Court on merits and as such, there is no substantial change in circumstances. The appellants have committed a very serious offence as they not only caused grave and serious injuries to deceased Rohit by inflicting lathis, sariyas and farsi blows but they also did not allow the police team who reached on the place of [2026:RJ-JP:3418] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-3251/2025] incident to take the deceased Rohit to hospital on time. In connection with the aforesaid incident, one other FIR No.383/2023 has also been registered by police department at Police Station Nadoti, Gangapur City for offences under Sections 332 and 353 IPC. It is thus, contended that the appellants along with other accused persons have taken law in their hands and threatened the police team in discharging their officials duties. It is argued that it is a clear case of mob-lynching in which, deceased lost his life. He thus, prays that benefit of bail should not be extended to the appellants. 5. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that there is no substantial change in circumstances, as also the fact that on an earlier occasion, appeal (bail) preferred by the appellant was considered by this Court and same was dismissed by a detailed order, which reads as under:- “6. There are allegations against the appellants that the deceased Rohit was brutally beaten by the appellants and other villagers and he had been held hostage by them. The police team who reached at the place of incident was not allowed to take custody of the deceased Rohit and after a great hardship, the police team could take the custody of the deceased Rohit and took him to the hospital where the doctors declared him dead. This mob-lynching practice is not acceptable in civilized society at any cost. We are not living in a barbarian society. People are not allowed to take law in their hands so also, they should also not be allowed to create hindrance in working of the police, who in the instant case, reached at the spot but was prevented in discharging their official duties of maintaining law and order situation. The proceedings arising out of FIR lodged by the appellant side against the deceased Rohit for [2026:RJ-JP:3418] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-3251/2025] commission of rape upon the minor daughter of appellant would proceed as per law and the appellants cannot be allowed to take shield of said FIR at this stage. The appellant Harkesh is named in the FIR and he was also alleged to have caused beatings to the deceased Rohit in the FIR. There is allegation in the FIR that appellants along with other villagers took law in their hands and committed murder of the deceased Rohit and brushed aside the orders of the police team.” 7. Thus, considering the gravity of offences and nature of allegations attributed to the appellants, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to change its earlier view and enlarge the appellants on bail. Consequently, the criminal appeals are dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these criminal appeals (bail) and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN/14-15