[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ambalal vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7714) on 11 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7714]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 156/2026
1. Kailash Singh Mehra S/o Mohan Singh Mehra, Aged About
36 Years, Somerwalo Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi,
District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In
District Jail Chittorgarh)
2. Sanju Urf Sanjay S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 25 Years,
Somerwalo Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Chittorgarh)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt. Shaymudi Urf Shaymudevi W/o Jagdish, Somerwalo
Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 157/2026
1. Ambalal S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Somerwalo
Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
2. Jagdish S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 48 Years, Somerwalo
Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
3. Champa Lal S/o Bheru Lal, Aged About 48 Years,
Somerwalo Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail
Chittorgarh)
4. Bheru S/o Uday Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Somerwalo
Ka Kheda, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh,
Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In District Jail Chittorgarh)
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Shaymudi Urf Shaymudevi, Somerwalo Ka Kheda
Police Station Rashmi District Chittorgarh
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:14:41 PM)
(Downloaded on 11/02/2026 at 06:06:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7714] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-156/2026]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan with
Ms. Heena Aman Siddique
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
11/02/2026
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 Rashmi
3. District Chittorgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 189(2), 331(6), 115(2),
324(4), 126(2), 74 of BNS,
2023 and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S),
3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST Act
5. Offences added, if any 326(g)
6. Date of passing of impugned 13.01.2026
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 hve been made an
accused based on conjectures and surmises.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7714] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-156/2026]
3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that all
the offences as alleged against the accused-appellants are
triable by Magistrate except offence under Section 326(g) of
BNS. He further submits that allegations levelled in the FIR
are omnibus and there is no specific role upon the present
appellants in the crime in question. Based on these
submissions, it is argued that the accused-appellants, who
are presently in judicial custody since 06.01.2026, 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 accussed-appellants were gathered as mob and
attacked the complainants house and have also caused loss
of the property apart from inflicting the injuries. The present
case is not fit for enlargement of accused-appellants on bail.
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 case diary which prima facie indicates that the
injuries caused are simple in nature so also the fact that no
specific act is assigned upon the present petitioners, this
Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would
be served by keeping the appellants behind bars for an
indefinite period. Thus, without expressing any opinion on
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:14:41 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7714] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-156/2026]
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that
the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed.
7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order dated 13.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge
SC ST Court Chittorgarh is set aside. It is ordered that the
accused-appellants- Kailash Singh Mehra S/o Mohan
Singh Mehra, Sanju Urf Sanjay S/o Shankar Lal,
Ambalal S/o Mohan Lal, Jagdish S/o Mohan Lal,
Champa Lal S/o Bheru Lal and Bheru S/o Uday Ram,
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
54-55-AbhishekK/-
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 04:14:41 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
