[2026:RJ-JP:12473] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1928/2025 Laxminarayan Urf Ajay S/o Babulal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Chainpura Police Station Lakhanpur District Bharatpur At Present Behind Community Health Centre, Ward No. 04, Andhi Police Station Andhi District Jaipur (Raj) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Alwar) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Vijendhar Kumar S/o Ramprakash, R/o Borai Dausa Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/03/2026 1. This is criminal appeal filed by the appellant seeking bail. The earlier appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court with liberty to file a fresh after framing of charge vide order dated 23.04.2025. 2. This appeal under Section 14A(2) 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 23.05.2025 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. 206/2022 registered at Police Station [2026:RJ-JP:12473] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1928/2025] Pratapgarh, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 406, 506, 120-B and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(S) of SC/ST Act whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that after dismissal of the first bail application, now charges have been framed by the trial court against the appellant under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) and 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST Act on 22.05.2025. Learned counsel contended that out of total 20 witnesses only 03 witnesses have been examined, therefore, the trial will take considerable long time. The appellant is in custody since 18.11.2024. Therefore, the appeal presented by the present appellant may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that name of the appellant finds place in the FIR. There are sufficient material available on record which reflects that the appellant induced the complainant on pretext of arranging plot and obtained a loan from the Bank in the name of complainant and transferred the entire loan amount in his Bank Account and misappropriated the complete amount. Thereafter neither the promised property was delivered nor the amount was returned. He also argued that three cases of similar nature are pending against the appellant and it is settled law that in cases involving serious economic offences and offences under the SC/ST [2026:RJ-JP:12473] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1928/2025] Act, bail should not be granted lightly, particularly when the allegations are supported by material evidence. Therefore, looking to the gravity, seriousness, and nature of the offences alleged against the accused, present appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case especially the allegations involving inducement, misappropriation of money, continuous deception and without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case but in view of the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to to allow the appeal filed by the appellant. 7. Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/110