Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manoj vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25731) on 26 May, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:25731]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 933/2025
1.       Manoj S/o Ramchandra, Aged About 45 Years, R/o House
         No. 1 Nayapura, Delhi Gate, P.s. Dhanmandi, Udaipur.
2.       Lokesh S/o Ramchandra Teli, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
         House No. 1 Nayapura, Delhi Gate, P.s. Dhanmandi,
         Udaipur.
3.       Tushar S/o Harish Teli, Aged About 23 Years, R/o House
         No. 1 Nayapura, Delhi Gate, P.s. Dhanmandi, Udaipur.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    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. Hitendra Singh for
                                Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)         :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
                                Mr. Vikram Jaitawat for complainant
                                Mr. Vijay Kumar for injured

               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order 26/05/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) of

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants,

apprehending their arrest 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 Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 28.04.2025

passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Udaipur whereby, the

[2025:RJ-JD:25731] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-933/2025]

anticipatory bail application preferred under Section 482 B.N.S.S. on

behalf of the appellants was rejected.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants

have falsely been implicated in this case while alleging that the

appellants abused the complainant Jitendra by calling casteist

abusive language etc. an also caused injuries to Dalip and Shivam.

He further submits that in the FIR, specific allegation has been

levelled that the appellants caused injuries to Shivam, however,

the injury is simple in nature. He further submits that the parties

have decided to resolve their dispute by way of compromise which

is placed on record. He also submits that since the parties have

entered into compromise, the present appeal has been filed by the

appellants after the rejection of anticipatory bail application under

Section 482 BNSS/438 Cr.P.C. by the learned trial Court. He

further places reliance upon the order dated 05.02.2021 passed

by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal

No.1069/2020 which is reproduced as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the report received from the SHO, Police Station Hanumangarh Town, which indicates that the complainant has been notified of this appeal. Despite that, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant in this appeal.

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved of the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Case, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case

[2025:RJ-JD:25731] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-933/2025]

No.209/2020, whereby thebail application preferred under Section 438 CrPC on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

The appellant is neither named in the FIR or in the statements of the witnesses, whose statements were filed alongwith the initial charge-sheet. in the assault. All that is alleged by Jagdish is that he went to the field of the accused Ramesh @ Dholu after the incident and there Ramesh introduced to him 15 boys including the appellant. Ramesh allegedly confessed that on the previous night they had assaulted Amar Singh in a fit of rage and that some grave injurieshad been inflicted to him. All the persons present at the field of Ramesh @ Dholu admitted their complicity in the crime.

Ex facie, I am satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the belated version of Jagdish recorded on 12.06.2020, in which he took the name of the present appellant amongst the 15 persons, who were present at the field of Ramesh @ Dholu after the incident, is totally unbelievable, cooked up and fabricated.

In this background, I am of the view that prima facie the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act cannot be said to be made out beyond all manner of doubt against the appellant, who deserves indulgence of pre-arrest bail.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 01.12.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Case, Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.209/2020 is set aside. and it is directed that in the event of arrest of appellant Sahil Bishnoi S/o Omprakash in connection with F.I.R. No.90/2020 registered at the Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, he shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum 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 shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

[2025:RJ-JD:25731] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-933/2025]

acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii) that the appellant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court."

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 appellants

have not abused him by casteist remarks and not caused any

injury to him and has no objection if the appellants are given

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

submitted that the appellants have not abused him by casteist

remarks and not caused him any injury. Learned counsel for the

injured vehemently opposes the bail application.

6. Taking into consideration the judgment dated 05.02.2021

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 appellants

since the complainant Jitendra and the petitioners have decided to

resolve their dispute by way of said compromise and the

complainant Jitendra in the agreement dated 15.04.2025 has

specifically stated that he was neither beaten nor suffered any

injury at the hands of the appellants and nor did the appellants

use casteist remarks against him.

[2025:RJ-JD:25731] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-933/2025]

7. 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 of the SC/ST Act and the

appellants deserves indulgence of pre-arrest bail.

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

order dated 28.04.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/

ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Case, Udaipur in Criminal Misc.

Case No.163/2025 is set aside. and it is directed that in the event

of arrest of appellants No.1 Manoj S/o Ramchandra Teli , 2.

Lokesh S/o Ramchandra Teli and 3. Tushar S/o Harish Teli,

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

Police Station Dhanmandi, District Udaipur, they shall be released

on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

sum 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