[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bala Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6955]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 81/2026
Bala Ram S/o Jai Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Ribiya
Police Station Bhaleri, District Churu. (At Present Lodged In
District Jail, Churu)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manohar Lal S/o Phula Ram, Resident Of Village Ribiya
P.s. Bhaleri District Churu.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jaidev Singh
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
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:54:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6955] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-81/2026]
6. Date of passing of impugned 17.10.2025
order
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 one lathi has been alleged to be recovered
at the instance of the appellant, however, recovery of lathi
itself could not be a ground sufficient in itself to connect him
with the alleged crime. It is also submitted that the accused-
appellant was not even named in the FIR.
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 01:54:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6955] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-81/2026]
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 27.06.2025 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 appeal,
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 01:54:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6955] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-81/2026]
prima-facie finds that none of the injured witnesses, namely,
Manoharlal, Hariram, Naresh and Sunil have alleged that the
accused-appellant was carrying any weapon, which was used
to inflict injury to deceased Rohitash nor any injured
witnesses have stated that the accused-appellant was having
lathi with him at the time when this incident took place, 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- Bala
Ram S/o Shri Jai 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
skm/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:54:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
