[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramlal Alias Kaluram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6956]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2874/2025
Ramlal Alias Kaluram S/o Badaru Ram, Aged About 18 Years,
Resident Of Ribia, Police Station Bhaleri, District Churu,
Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail Churu)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Manohar Lal S/o Fula Ram, Resident Of Ribiya, Police
Station Bhaleri, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Jakhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP
Mr. Rajak Khan
Mr. Pankaj Sain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Concluded and
Reserved on : 05/02/2026
Pronounced on : 10/02/2026
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 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 Bhaleri
3. District Churu
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 103, 110, 115(2), 117(2),
126(2) and 191(3) of BNS
and Section 3(2)(v) of the
SC/ST Act.
5. Offences added, if any
6. Date of passing of impugned 17.10.2025
order
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:56:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6956] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2874/2025]
7. Name of the Court who passed Learned Special Judge,
impugned order SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu
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. It is argued that the allegation against the present accused-
appellant is that he was present at the scene of occurrence
with the mob, who attacked on the deceased Rohitash and
other injured. It is also submitted that the accused-appellant
was neither named in the FIR nor any recovery has been
made from him.
3.1 Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submitted that
the FIR was lodged by Manoharlal on 27.06.2025, who is not
only the informant but also an injured witness. The said
Manoharlal, in the FIR so also in his statement recorded
under Section 180 of the BNSS, has not assigned any
specific role to the accused-appellant for inflicting any injury
to Rohitash (deceased) as well as the complainant himself.
3.2 He also submitted that Hariram, Naresh and Sunil also
sustained injuries being present at the time of incident as
alleged in the FIR. However, in the statement recorded under
Section 180 BNSS, but none of these three injured witnesses
assigned any role to the present appellant in inflicting any
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:56:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6956] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2874/2025]
injury to the deceased Rohitash, rather, the allegation of
inflicting injuries was levelled against Balveer, Dharmaram
and Mangilal. Further, the postmortem report of the
deceased Rohitash indicated three injuries, sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature and the same are
not attributable to the appellant.
3.3 Learned counsel submitted that the accused-appellant is in
judicial custody since 01.08.2025 and the trial will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned
counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail
application, submitted that the accused-appellant is in
custody on account of committing heinous crime under
Section 103(1) of BNS. It is also submitted that the
deceased Rohitash along with others including the
complainant Manoharlal were brutally attacked in a form of a
mob and, therefore, the role of the accused-appellant is not
different from the other persons, namely, Balveer, Dharma
Ram and Mangilal, therefore, the accused-appellant does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the charge-
sheet, so also considering the statements of injured
witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, this Court
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:56:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6956] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2874/2025]
prima-facie finds that none of the injured witnesses have
alleged that the accused-appellant was carrying any weapon,
which was used to inflict injury to deceased Rohitash nor was
he named in the FIR and no recovery has been made from
him, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the accused-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 this appeal deserves to be
allowed and the accused-appellant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 17.10.2025 passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu is
set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant- Ramlal
@ Kaluram S/o Shri Badaru Ram 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
skm/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:56:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
