[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vanveer Alias Vanaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:7914) on 12 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7914]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 68/2026
Vanveer Alias Vanaram S/o Shri Modaram, Aged About 48 Years,
R/o Ker, Police Station Sarupganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan
(Presently Lodged In District Jail Sirohi)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Manaram S/o Shri Kaluram, R/o Ker, Police Station
Sarupganj, District Sirohi, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
None present for R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
12/02/2026
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant
against the order dated 03.01.2026, passed by the learned Special
Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, District Sirohi in
Criminal Misc. Case No.339/2025, whereby bail application
preferred Section 483 of BNSS (Section 439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of
the appellant was rejected.
2. The appellant is in custody in connection with F.I.R.
No.218/2025, registered at Police Station Saroopganj, District
Sirohi for the offences under Sections 333, 109(1), 115(2), 3(5) of
BNS and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act and (Charge-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:48:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7914] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-68/2026]
sheet has been filed for offences Under Sections 103(1), 115(2) &
3(5) of BNS & 3(1)(r)(5) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act.
3. On 30.01.2026, learned Public Prosecutor produced a report
and submitted that notice was duly served upon respondent No.2-
complainant, however, no one appeared on behalf of respondent
No.2-complainant on that day. Today also, no one has appeared
on behalf of the respondent No.2-complainant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further
submitted that the cause of death of the deceased-Kalu Ram was
a head injury, which has been attributed to one Gopal. This fact
also finds mention in the statement of the complainant-Mana Ram
(PW-1), as recorded by the learned trial Court. The relevant
portion of the said statement reads as under:
"fnukad 15-08-2025 dks 'kke dks djhc 7 cts dh ckr gSA ml jkst
esjs firk dkywjke th eqfYteku o.kkjke o xksiky dks le>kdj ?kj
ij vk;s FksA ml le; eqfYteku o.kkjke o xksiky tkfrlwpd xkyh
xykSp djrs gq, dgrs gq, ?kj ij vk;s vkSj cksyk fd lkys HkhyMs ?
kj ds ckgj vk vkSj rqe euk cksyus okyk dkSu gksrk gSA ml l;e
xksiky ds gkFk esa ykBh Fkh vkSj o.kkjke ds gkFk esa dqYgkMh FkhA fQj
esjs ?kj ds lkeus o.kkjke us esjs xky ij FkIiM ekjh vkSj esjs firk
ds flj ij xksiky us ykBh ls pksV ekjhA ftlls esjs firk rqjar uhps
fxj x;sA eSaus o.kkjke }kjk dqYgkMh ls pksV ekjus ij esjs gkFk ls
dqYgkMh dks idM+ fy;k Fkk vkSj eSa fpYyk;k rc esjh HkkHkh gksyhnsoh
o ccyh nsoh nksuks Hkkxdj vkbZ ftl ij xksiky us ykBh ls esjh
HkkHkh gksyhnsoh ds da/ks ij pksV ekjhA ccyhnsoh us cpko djrs gq,
xksiky dh ykBh dks idM+ fy;k gksyhnsoh us xksiky dks cksyk fd esjs
firk dks rks ekj fn;k gS vkSj vc D;k budks Hkh ekjuk pkgrk gSA "
6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the
complainant has admitted the fact that the Gopal has inflicted
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:48:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7914] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-68/2026]
head injury to his father (Kalu Ram - deceased) by lathi. It is
further submitted that no axe has been recovered in connection
with the alleged incident and the lathi was recovered from co-
accused Gopal as per the recovery memo. Learned counsel also
submitted that the appellant has been in judicial custody since
22.08.2025, the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is likely
to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail
may be granted to the accused-appellant .
7. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the present bail application and submitted that the
appellant is involved in the incident, therefore, the benefit of bail
ought not to be granted to him. However, he is not in a position to
refute the fact that as per the conclusion of the investigation as
well as the statement of Mana Ram, the head injury to the
deceased was inflicted by Gopal.
8. Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on
record and considering the fact that challan has already been filed
and appellant is in custody since 22.08.2025 and trial of the case
will take sufficiently long time to conclude; without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, the order rejecting the
application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be
sustained and deserves to be set aside.
9. Consequently, instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order
dated 03.01.2026 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, District Sirohi is set aside. It is
ordered that accused-appellant Vanveer Alias Vanaram S/o
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:48:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7914] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-68/2026]
Shri Modaram, arrested in connection with above mentioned FIR,
shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each to the
satisfaction of 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.
10. It is, however, made clear that findings recorded/
observations made above, are for limited purpose of adjudication
of present appeal (bail). The trial court shall not get prejudiced by
the same.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
236-AbhishekS/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 02:48:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
