[2026:RJ-JP:23225] lHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1311/2026 Amar Singh S/o Kaluram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Sawai Sagar, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Babulal, Presently Posted As Head Constable, Police Station Chouth Ka Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP6+654 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA (V. J.) Order 15/06/2026 1. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the present criminal appeal with liberty to file a regular bail application, submitting that as no offence under the SC/ST Act is being involved. This Court in the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7664/2026 has held as under:- “4. This Court, upon perusal of the FIR, finds that no allegation has been made and no offence under the SC/ST Act of 1989 is disclosed therein. This Court further finds that, if the Court which passed the impugned order was functioning as a Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act of 1989, it is unclear as to how the bail application came to be transferred to the said Court. 5. Further, if a Court designated as an SC/ST Court is also vested with powers other than those exercisable as a Special Court and is competent to entertain bail applications in its capacity as a Court [2026:RJ-JP:23225] (2 of 2) [CRLAS-1311/2026] of Sessions, it cannot be said that such Court was exercising powers under the SC/ST Act of 1989 merely because it also functions as a Special Court under the said Act. In such circumstances, the Court shall be deemed to have exercised its jurisdiction as a regular Court of Sessions. 6. Since no offence under the SC/ST Act of 1989 has been alleged against the petitioner and all the offences alleged are under the IPC, the mere fact that the Court passing the impugned order also had jurisdiction as a Special Court under the SC/ST Act of 1989 would not lead to the conclusion that the order was passed in exercise of powers under the said Act. Rather, it can only be held that the Court was exercising its jurisdiction as a regular Court of Sessions and not as a Special Court under the SC/ST Act of 1989. 7. Accordingly, the objection raised by the Registry is hereby waived.” 2. Therefore, the permission is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the present criminal appeal with liberty to file a regular bail application in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file bail application. 4. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 5. Registry is directed to return the certified copy as well as Vakalatnama to the appellant after retaining the photocopy on the record. (BIPIN GUPTA (V. J.)),J 138/PRATEEK KUMAR