##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:6011]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 55/2026

Mangal Singh S/o Shankar Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o

Ulpura Nadi Wala Police Station Nathdwara District Rajsamand

(Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Rajsamand)

----Appellant

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Jairaj Kalasriya, Presently Jamadar Nagar Parishad

Kankroli Rajsamand Rajnagar Rajsamand Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP

Mr. DK Godara for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

03/02/2026

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of

filing an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act 1989, at the instance of accused-appellant.

The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein

below:

S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number 316/2025

2. Concerned Police Station Kankroli

3. District Rajsamand

4. Offences alleged in the FIR 121(1), 132, 115(2), 191(2)

of BNS and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/

ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act

5. Offences added, if any 121(1), 132, 3(5) of BNS;

3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:18:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 11:21:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6011] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-55/2026]

6. Date of passing of impugned 05.01.2026

order

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no

case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play

in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to

the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused

based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant

was arrested in connection with FIR which was lodged on

19.12.2025 and was arrested on 03.01.2026. The role

assigned to the present appellant is not distinguishable from

the role assigned to co-accused Bharat Kumar Dave, who

has already been granted interim protection by a Coordinate

Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Writ Petition No.

297/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026 wherein it was

observed that appellant-Bharat Kumar Dave shall not be

arrested in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant

fairly submits that only distinguishing feature between the

present appellant and co-accused Bharat Kumar Dave is that

appellant is having previous criminal antecedents which were

registered in the year 2021-2022. Based on these

submissions, it is argued that the appellant, who is presently

in judicial custody, is entitled to be enlarged on bail as the

trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude.

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:18:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 09/02/2026 at 11:21:38 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6011] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-55/2026]

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant oppose the appeal and submits that the

present case is not fit for enlargement of the appellant on

bail. However, they are not in a position to refute the fact

that the role assigned to the present appellant is not

distinguishable from the role of co-accused Bharat Kumar

Dave who has already been granted interim protection by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Criminal Writ Petition

No. 297/2026 vide order dated 28.01.2026.

5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and

perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for

both the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case,

and prima facie considering the fact that appellant did not

utter foul words or made caste-based discriminatory remarks

upon complainant/respondent(s); petitioner is in judicial

custody since 03.01.2026, so also the fact that the co-

accused Bharat Kumar Dave has already been granted

interim protection by Coordinate Bench of this Court; this

Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would

be served by keeping the appellant beh