[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6011) on 3 February, 2026
[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
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)
[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)
[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 behind the bars for an
indefinite period. Thus, without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:18:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6011] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-55/2026]
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Rajsamand is set
aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Mangal
Singh S/o Shankar Singh arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, provided he
furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties 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.
8. 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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
5-Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 06:18:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
