[2026:RJ-JP:13457] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 190/2026 Lokendra Son Of Shrichand, Resident Of Village Math Mallpura, Police Station Sarmathura, Dholpur (Raj.) (At Present In Confined In District Jail, Dholpur) ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shankarlal Son Of Rambhajan, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Reechra, Sarmathura, Dholpur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Dushyant Jain Mr. Udit Sapra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 30/03/2026 1. The instant appeal is filed under Section 14A (2) of SC/ST (POA) Act in a matter arising out of FIR No. 155/2024 at P.S. Sarmathura, District Dholpur for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341, 325, 336, 506 IPC and 3-1(RS), 3- 2(VA), 3-2(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that appellant was falsely implicated in present case. Learned counsel for appellant submits that first bail appeal of appellant was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court on 21.08.2025 and thereafter statement of three eye-witnesses, who were also injured were examined by the trial court. He referred statement of PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Ratiram and PW-3 [2026:RJ-JP:13457] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-190/2026] Shankar Lal and submitted that no specific assignment of any blow or injury is made against the appellant. He further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus, but no specific attribution of inflicting injury has been made upon the present petitioner. He further referred to the statements of PW-2 Ratiram and PW-3 Shankarlal and submitted that the involvement of the present appellant is not established from the evidence. He further referred to the injuries over the scalp of the deceased and submitted that the said injuries are not attributed to the present appellant, and therefore, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail, as he is in custody since his arrest on 18.06.2024. He also submits that the disposal of case will take its own time and keeping appellant behind the bars would serve no purpose so he is entitled to be released on bail. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant was involved in the incident, as his involvement has been proved by PW-1 in his statement. He further submitted that a specific allegation has been made against the appellant, and therefore, he is not entitled to claim that he was not involved in the incident. It was also submitted that the police have filed a charge-sheet against four persons and the appellant is one of them. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:13457] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-190/2026] 6. The first bail appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.08.2025, and now, for the second time, this bail appeal has been filed by the appellant. Prior to filing of the present bail appeal, the appellant approached the trial court under Section 483 of BNSS, which came to be dismissed on 12.01.2026. After dismissal of S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3015/2024 on 21.08.2025, statements of PW-1 Prem Singh, PW-2 Ratiram, and PW-3 Shankarlal were recorded by the trial court, and the same have been considered. 7. The cause of death of deceased Ankush is head injury. There was a surgical stitched wound having 29 black colored stitches present over the scalp, starting from just before the bregma extending backwards towards the parietal region, marking a C-shaped curve towards the right parietal region and just anterior to the right ear. Underneath scalp is ecehymosea, and two burr holes were surgically created over the frontal and parietal regions. The frontal and parietal bones were also found fractured. Epidural hemorrhage was present over the right fronto-parietal area, and the dura mater indicated subarachnoid hemorrhage over the right side of the cerebellum and brain surface. 8. The present appellant was arrested on 18.06.2024. Admittedly, three persons, namely Prem Singh, Ratiram, and Shankarlal, who were claimed to be injured eyewitnesses, have been examined by the prosecution before the trial court. In the FIR, initially involvement of four persons was alleged; however, subsequently, other persons were also stated to have joined the incident, and overall nine persons [2026:RJ-JP:13457] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-190/2026] were named in the report, which included Loke @ Lokendra, though dispute is raised by learned counsel for appellant about involvement of appellant. 9. Considering the evidence recorded so far, the involvement of the present appellant is corroborated by all three eyewitnesses. There are multiple injuries upon the body of deceased Ankush, and injuries have also been caused to other injured persons. Therefore, the case is of a grave nature. 10. At this stage, it is not appropriate to examine the contradictions and discrepancies in the statements of the three witnesses examined so far; however, the overall involvement of the present appellant is named by all three witnesses. 11. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by appellant-Lokendra Son Of Shrichand is hereby dismissed. Misc. application stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /09