[2025:RJ-JD:54042]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2167/2025

Manish S/o Shantilal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 54, Harsh Nagar,

Ward No. 4, Ps Ambamata, Dist. Udaipur, Raj.

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Nirmala Meghwal W/o Laluram, Aged About 27 Years,

Sadaya, Mandarda, Ps Gogunda, Udaipur

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ojas Shakdwipeeya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

15/12/2025

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 14.08.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Udaipur in Criminal Misc. Case No.248/2025 filed by the appellant under Section 483 B.N.S.S, 2023 in connection with FIR No.63/2025 registered at Police Station Badgaon, District Udaipur for offences under Sections 64(2)(M), 127(4), 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(2) (V) of the SC/ST Act, whereby, the bail application filed by the

appellant was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been implicated in the criminal case based on false and fabricated fact. He submits that the case has been lodged by the complainant party having enmity with the accused-appellant so as

to teach a lesson to him. He also submits that the contents of the First Information Report itself clearly reveal that it is based on false and fabricated facts. Counsel for the appellant submits the accused-appellant is in custody since 18.06.2025 and he is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery. It is also submitted that the trial of the case will take long time.

3. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant submit that there is an allegation of rape against accused-appellant which is of serious and grave nature and the accused-appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.

4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant.

5. As per the averments made in the First Information Report, the prosecutrix is said to have been taken by the accused appellant on 10.03.2025 and the First Information Report has been lodged on 28.03.2025.

6. As per the contents of the First Information Report itself, the FIR has been lodged when the prosecutrix was seen on a motorcycle with the accused by her cousin sister. No explanation has been given for the intervening period as to why the prosecutrix was not available at home and why no report was lodged.

7. Taking into consideration the facts as borne out from the contents of the First Information Report, the probability of lodging this Criminal case on false and fabricated facts cannot be ruled out and the fact that no explanation has been given for the delay in lodging the First Information Report and as the accused-appellant is said to have been in custody since 18.06.2025, this Court deems it to be a fit case where the accused-appellant deserves to be released on bail.

8. The criminal appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act is allowed and order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is directed that appellant named above shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR provided, he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

385-neha/-