Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:48864) on 13 November, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:48864]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1963/2025
Anil Sharma S/o Vimal Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bevad
Police Station Hamirwas At Present Ward No. 15, Subhash Nagar,
Rajgarh District Churu. (At Present Lodged In District Jail,
Churu)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Anil Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar Jat, R/o Ward No.16,
Subhash Nagar, Rajgarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia
Mr. Ashish Jakhar
Mr. Sunil Fageria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
13/11/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant
against the order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the learned Special
Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.145/2025,
whereby the bail application preferred Section 483 of BNSS
(Section 439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the appellant was rejected.
2. The appellant is in custody in connection with F.I.R.
No.145/2020, registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Churu
for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:32:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48864] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-1963/2025]
& Section 27 of Arms Act & Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report that
notices have duly been served upon respondent No.2-complainant,
however, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2-
complainant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, till date, only
12 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the
competent criminal court out of a total of 80 listed witnesses. It is
further submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Sandeep
@ Patang, Sukhvir @ Sukha, Sanpat Nehra @ Balkari @ Koch,
Mintu Modasiya @ Bintu Modasiya, Sarwan, and Sathish Meel @
Kaliya, have already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Benches
of this Court vide orders dated 22.04.2025, 24.09.2025,
10.06.2025, and 07.01.2022 passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal Nos.
439/2025, 1964/2025, 1965/2025, 366/2021, 963/2021, and
754/2021, respectively. It is further contended that the injured
eye-witness, PW-3, in his deposition before the trial court, has not
supported the prosecution version and has been declared hostile.
Moreover, PW-1 and PW-9, who have also been examined before
the competent criminal court, have similarly not supported the
prosecution case and have been declared hostile.
6. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of
Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs.
State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:32:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48864] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-1963/2025]
No.8523/2024), in which, while granting bail it has been
observed as under:
"9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the
petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-
accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to
examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a
near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial
process itself being the punishment particularly when there is
presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it
appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is
ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the
learned trial court."
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet has
already been filed, the appellant is in custody since 02.06.2020
(more than 5 years) and the trial of the case will take sufficiently
long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail should be
granted to the accused-appellant.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail, however, he is not in a position to refute the fact
that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail
by the Coordinate Benches of this Court, so also the fact that only
12 prosecution witnesses have been examined by the competent
criminal court till date out of a total 80 prosecution witnesses, out
of which, PW/1, PW/9 and PW/3 (injured eye witness) have been
declared hostile by the competent criminal court.
9. Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record, more specifically the statements of the
prosecution witnesses examined till date; examination of only 12
prosecution witnesses out of a total 80 prosecution witnesses; the
co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:32:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:48864] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-1963/2025]
Benches of this Court; other prosecution witnesses i.e. PW/1 and
PW/9 have also been declared hostile by the competent criminal
court; the challan of the case has already been presented and the
petitioner has been in custody since 02.06.2020 (more than 5
years) and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to
conclude; without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf
of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set
aside, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
10. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 01.05.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Cases, Churu in Criminal Misc. Case No.145/2025 is set aside. It is
ordered that the accused-appellant Anil Sharma S/o Vimal
Sharma, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.145/2020,
registered at Police Station, Rajgarh, District Churu, shall be
released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear
before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called
upon to do so.
11. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
277-mSingh/-
(Uploaded on 13/11/2025 at 04:32:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
