[2026:RJ-JP:1837] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 29/2026 Sahbuddin @ Sahab Khan @ Mulla Son Of Mohardeen @ Moharan @ Moharu, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Mudhi Ka Bas, Luhingakala, Police Station Punhana, District Nuh Mewat (Haryana) (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Sube Singh Son Of Prahlad Meghwal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Firozpur Road, Police Station Tijara, District Kherthal-Tijara, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/01/2026 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.191/2024, registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 327, 379, 392, 506 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Alwar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the case. The counsel for the accused-appellant further submits that the name of the accused- [2026:RJ-JP:1837] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-29/2026] appellant is not mentioned in the FIR. It is alleged against the other co-accused Fattu @ Fateh Singh that he along with the other co-accused named Ballu took away the complainant motorcycle and demand of money was made by Fateh Singh. The appellant has been falsely implicated solely on the disclosure statement of other co-accused Fateh Singh and the recovery of motorcycle was also effected from other co-accused Fateh Singh. The appellant has not demanded any money from the complainant, the appellant is in custody since 29.11.2025 and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeal of accused-appellant may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the intimation report served upon the respondent No.2. No one has turned up on behalf of the respondent No.2. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant and contended that the appellant is a habitual offender and against him 11 cases have been registered in various police station. It is also contended that he along with the other co-accused committed theft and demanded money, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the appeal of the accused-appellant may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that the name of the appellant is not mentioned in the FIR and the allegation of forcibly taken the motorcycle and demanding money from the complainant is not against the appellant, rather is against the other co-accused Fateh [2026:RJ-JP:1837] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-29/2026] Singh and recovery of motorcycle was also effected from Fateh Singh, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the appeal. 7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Alwar is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Sahbuddin @ Sahab Khan @ Mulla Son Of Mohardeen @ Moharan @ Moharu, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.191/2024 dated 23.04.2024, registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- 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 appellant is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the appellant and shall send the presence report of the appellant on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the appeal against the appellant for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/16