[2025:RJ-JD:54576]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2702/2025

Hansraj S/o Phula Ram @ Phool Chand, Aged About 29 Years, Resident of Besrada, Police Station Mehda District Jhunjhunun.

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner.)

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, through PP.

2. Sahdev Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Resident of Hadla

Kolayat District Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jai Kishan Suthar on behalf of

Mr. R.S. Choudhary

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

17/12/2025

1. The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in Cr. Misc. (Bail) Case No.394/2025 (CIS No.1833/2025), whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.66/2024 registered at Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 307, 382, 427, 325, 147, 148 & 149 of the BNS; Section 27 of the Arms Act; and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused persons, namely, Anil Kumar S/o Rohitash (S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1120/2024), Anil Kumar S/o Indraj (S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1677/2024) and Sanjay Mahla @ Sanjay Choudhary S/o Balveer Singh (S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1898/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 21.10.2024, 26.11.2024 and 09.12.2024, respectively. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present appellant is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above-named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and case of the present appellant is not at all distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

7. Consequently, the appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is allowed. The order dated 15.11.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner is set aside and it is ordered that the accused-appellant- Hansraj S/o Phula Ram @ Phool Chand shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.66/2024 registered at Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

322-Dinesh/-