[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramod vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7423) on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7423]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2864/2025
1. Vijay S/o Sh. Ramji Sahni, Aged About 27 Years, Resident
Of Saramsar Police Station Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
2. Ajay S/o Sh. Ranji Sahni, Aged About 26 Years, Resident
Of Saramsar Police Station Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
3. Dharmendra S/o Sh. Ranji Sahni, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of Saramsar Police Station Pilibanga District
Hanumangarh (Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
4. Surendra Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of
Saramsar Police Station Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
(Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumangarh)
----appellantss
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kulvindra S/o Sh. Harbans Singh, Resident Of Saramsar
Police Station Pilibanga District Hanumangarh
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 21/2026
Pramod S/o Shivaji Saini, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 07, Samrasar, Police Station Pilibanga,district
Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged At District Jail Hanumangarh)
----appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kulwinder Singh S/o Harbansh Singh, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Samrasar, Police Station Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For appellants(s) : Mr. Vipin Makkad
Mr. Anil Bidan Halu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
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
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 04:45:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7423] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2864/2025]
of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellants. The
requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Pilibanga
3. District Hanumangarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2)
of BNS.
5. Offences added, if any 117(2), 191(2) & 190 of
BNS and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
Act.
6. Date of passing of impugned 10.12.2025
order
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellants that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against them and
their 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-appellants and they have been made an
accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. It is argued that in the challan all five petitioners were made
accused. One wooden stick was recovered from one
Dharmendra. As far as Lovedeep Singh is concerned both the
injuries are simple in nature, as far as Gurvinder Singh is
concerned, injury No.1 was found to be grievous in nature
and injury Nos. 2 and 3 are reported to be simple in nature.
As far as third injured Kulwinder Singh is concerned, he
sustained four injuries out of which injury nos. 1,3 and 4
were simple in nature and injury no.2 was grievous in
nature. It is stated that all the offences alleged are triable by
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 04:45:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7423] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2864/2025]
Judicial Magistrate except the offences registered under SC/
ST Act. The charge-sheet has already been filed. Based on
these submissions, it is argued that the petitioner, who are
presently in judicial custody since 08.12.2025, are entitled to
be enlarged on bail as the trial will take sufficiently long time
to conclude.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
appellants, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and
submits that appellants gathered in mob and attacked the
injured persons and therefore, looking to the overt act of the
appellants, they may not be granted benefit of bail by this
Court.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Public
Prosecutor 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 the challan papers and the fact that challan has already
been filed; appellantss are in judicial custody since
08.12.2025 and injuries sustained by the injured-wtinesses
are mostly simple in nature except one injury by two of
injured-witnesses are grievous in nature. This Court is of the
considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by
keeping the apellants behind 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 appellants deserves to be allowed.
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 04:45:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7423] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2864/2025]
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Hanumangarh is set
aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellantss- Vijay S/o
Ramji Sahni, Ajay S/o Ramji Sahni, Dharmendra S/o
Ramji Sahni, Surendra Kumar S/o Jogi Sahni and
Pramod S/o Shivaji Saini arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, provided they
furnish 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
39-40--Jatin/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 04:45:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
