[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Kaswan @ Surendra Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6957]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2859/2025
Suresh Kaswan @ Surendra Kumar S/o Hanumanaram, Aged
About 40 Years, Resident Of Ribiya, Police Station Bhaleri,
District Churu, Rajasthan. Presently Lodged In District Jail Churu
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Manohar Lal S/o Fula Ram, Ribiya, Tehsil Districtchuru,
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.
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:57:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6957] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2859/2025]
5. Offences added, if any
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 the allegation against the present accused-
appellant is that he became a part of a mob and attacked
the deceased Rohitash as well as other persons, who
suffered injuries. It is also alleged that the vehicle, which
was allegedly used in committing the crime, was belonging
to the accused-appellant, however, there is no specific
allegation of causing any injury to the deceased and other
injured persons. No recovery of weapon has been made at
the instance of the accused-appellant.
3.1 He submitted that the co-accused Ramniwas, whose case is
on the same footing, has already been enlarged on bail by
this Court in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No.2573/2025,
decided on 03.12.2025.
3.2 Learned counsel submitted that the accused-appellant is in
judicial custody since 25.11.2025 and the trial will take
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:57:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6957] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2859/2025]
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. Moreso, even if the accused-appellant
was not having any weapon in his hands but using of vehicle
itself is a weapon in committing the crime. 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
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 any
injured witnesses have stated that the accused-appellant
was having any weapon with him at the time when this
incident took place nor any recovery has been made from
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:57:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6957] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2859/2025]
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- Suresh
Kaswan @ Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Hanumanaram
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 01:57:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
