ROHITASH YADAV S/O SH. BANSHIDHAR YADAV v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLAS/484/2026 · 2026-04-10
Sangeeta Sharma
Criminal Appealbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6610 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 6610 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:15084] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 484/2026 Rohitash Yadav S/o Sh. Banshidhar Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chimanpura, Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Accused-Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.P. -----Respondent
2. Goverdhan Lal Meena S/o Sh. Chandaram Meena, R/o Ghatwada, Police Station Chandwaji District Jaipur (Rural) (Raj.) ----Complainant/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dinesh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order 10/04/2026
1. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused- appellant under Section 14(A) of S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in connection with FIR No. 350/2024 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural, for the offence(s) under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, in which charge sheet has been filed under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 71, 74 of IT Act, Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Sections 4, 5, 6 Prize Chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Section 3/21 of The Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019.
2.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and has nothing to do with
[2026:RJ-JP:15084] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-484/2026] the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is in custody since 19.02.2026 and charge-sheet has already been filed in this matter. He further submits that co- accused namely Ramawatar Jat has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.02.2026 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3175/2025; trial will take its own time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant in custody and, therefore, prays to enlarge the appellant on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant hereinabove and submits that there are four other criminal antecedents against the accused-appellant.
4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-appellant, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter; accused-appellant is behind the bars since 19.02.2026; co-accused namely Ramawatar Jat has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; trial will take its own time. Hence, this Court without commenting anything on merits/demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the appellant on bail.
5. Consequently, this instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 20.02.2026 passed by Special Court, SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases No. 2, Jaipur Rural in Criminal Bail Application No. 55/2026 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Rohitash Yadav S/o Sh. Banshidhar Yadav is ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.
[2026:RJ-JP:15084] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-484/2026] 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the following conditions; (i) The accused-appellant shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The accused-appellant shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the law. (iii) The accused-appellant shall attend the hearing of the trial Court on the date fixed by the trial Court or as and when asked to appear before the trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the accused-appellant shall be liable to be cancelled.
6. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.
7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance.
(SANGEETA SHARMA),J Shivani/62