[2026:RJ-JP:23224] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1309/2026 1. Sunny Prajapat Son of Narendra Prajapat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of 27, Avantika Colony, Ujjain, District- Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh). 2. Ujjawal Lalawat Son of Chandraprakash, Aged About 22 Years, Resident of Hathipura, Shastri Marg, Ujjain, District- Ujjain (Madhya Pradesh). ----Appellants Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Dinesh Shahu Son of Parmanand, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Near Hanuman Ji Mandir, Sanjay Ghandi Nagar, Kota, (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP Mr. Avinash Fenin HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA (V. J.) Order 15/06/2026 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran, District Baran, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 184/2026, arising out of F.I.R. No. 01/2025, Police Station Cyber Police Station (Baran), District Baran, for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 319(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, whereby the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023 has been dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:23224] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-1309/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when queried as to the maintainability of the present criminal appeal, submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned Special Court constituted under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and therefore, submits that any order passed by the Special Court is appealable, even if no offence under the SC/ST Act is made out. He further submits that initially an anticipatory bail application was filed; however, the Registry pointed out certain defects, whereupon the same was withdrawn and the present appeal was filed. 3. This Court, in its order dated 12.06.2026 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7664/2026, had already clarified the position that merely because the impugned order has been passed by a Special Court constituted under the SC/ST Act, the provisions of the said Act would not automatically become applicable in the absence of any offence under the Act being made out in the FIR or found during investigation. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are reproduced hereinbelow: “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 [2026:RJ-JP:23224] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-1309/2026] applications in its capacity as a Court 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.” 4. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present criminal appeal with liberty to file an anticipatory bail application. The earlier withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application on account of filing of the present criminal appeal shall not come in the way of filing a fresh anticipatory bail application. 5. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal stands disposed of. 6. Registry is directed to return back the certified copy as well as Vakalatnama to the appellant after retaining the photocopy on the record. (BIPIN GUPTA (V. J.)),J 137/PRATEEK KUMAR