Ramchandra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28996)
2025 Latest Caselaw 1838 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 1838 Raj
Judgement Date : 4 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ramchandra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28996) on 4 July, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:28996]

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1194/2025

Ramchandra S/o Shri Dal Chandra, Aged About 67 Years, Resident
Of House No. 1 Nayapura Delhi Gate Ps Dhanmandi Udaipur Raj.

                                                                      ----Appellant

                                      Versus

1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2.       Jitendra S/o Mangi Lal, R/o Ghoda Ghati, (Karauli Nohra),
         Tehsil Nathdwara, Dist. Rajsamand

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)            :    Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Urja Ram, PP
                                 Mr. Vikram Singh for the complainant
                                 Mr. Vijay Kumar for the injured



                HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

04/07/2025

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in

custody in connection with F.I.R. No.25/2025 dated 29.03.2025

registered at Police Station Dhanmandi, District Udaipur, for the

offences under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 352, 115(2), 189(2) BNS and

Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act against the order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the

learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby, the anticipatory bail

application preferred under Section 482 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the

appellant was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

[2025:RJ-JD:28996] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1194/2025]

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has

falsely been implicated in this case while alleging that the appellant

along with other co-accused hurled casteist profanities to the

complainant Jitendra and threatened to kill him and his daughter upon

which the complainant ran towards the hotel where he was working.

Thereafter, the appellant along with co-accused followed the

complainant and after reaching the hotel attacked the complainant as

well as Dilip and Shivam. It has also been alleged in the FIR that the

appellant has attacked Dilip Kumar with iron rod. He, however

submits that the injuries sustained by Dilip Kumar are simple in

nature. He further submits that the appellant has arrived at a

compromise with the complainant-Jitendra wherein Jitendra has

stated on a written affidavit dated 15.04.2025 that the appellant has

neither hurled casteist profanities at him nor has assaulted him, which

has been placed on record. He further submits that co-accused Manoj,

Lokesh and Tushar have already been granted the relief of

anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.05.2025 passed in SB Criminal

Appeal No. 933/2025 while taking into account the compromise as

well as the judgment dated 05.02.2021 passed by Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in SB Criminal Appeal No.1069/2020. He, thus urges that

the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the complainant also submits that the

parties have decided to resolve their dispute by compromise and the

complainant has specifically submitted that the appellant has not

committed any offence against him and has neither insulted him nor

intimidated him with intent to humiliate and have also not abused him

by caste names. He also submits that the complainant has no

objection if the appellant is granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application, however,

is not in a position to refute that the parties have arrived at

compromise in which the complainant Jitendra has specifically

[2025:RJ-JD:28996] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1194/2025]

submitted that the appellant has not hurled casteist profanities at the

complainant and also has not caused him any injury.

6. Learned counsel for the injured vehemently opposes the bail

application and submits at the outset that the present appeal is not

maintainable in view of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act. He further

submits that he has not entered into any compromise with the

appellant. He also submits that in the FIR, specific allegations have

been levelled against the appellant that he has attacked injured- Dilip

with iron rod and have caused as many as seven simple injuries.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the

case and also the submissions made by learned counsel for the

parties, it prima facie appears that the offence under Section 3 of the

SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out against the appellant since

the complainant Jitendra and the appellant have decided to resolve

their dispute by way of said compromise and the complainant Jitendra

in written affidavit dated 15.04.2025 has specifically stated that the

appellant has neither hurled casteist profanities at him nor has

assaulted him. Thus, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act would

not be applicable.

8. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as

available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments

advanced at bar, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the appeal filed by

the accused/appellant under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST Act and

the appellant deserves indulgence of pre-arrest bail.

9. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 05.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Cases, Udaipur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant

[2025:RJ-JD:28996] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1194/2025]

Ramchandra S/o Shri Dal Chandra, arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.25/2025 dated 29.03.2025 registered at Police Station

Dhanmandi, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail; provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of

Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating

Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

(I) that the appellant/s shall make himself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the appellant/s shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and