[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Prakash Puri vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:8092]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2250/2025
Prakash Puri S/o Shri Madhopuri, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Kharadi, PS Sojat Road, District Pali Raj. (In Judicial Custody In
District Jail Pali)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P
2. Mangi Lal S/o Vena Ram, R/o Kharadi, PS Sojat Road,
District Pali Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Chudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 12/02/2026
Pronounced on : 16/02/2026
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 Shivpura
3. District Pali
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 103(1) & 238(b) of BNS-
2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of
the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989
5. Offences added, if any
6. Date of passing of impugned 29.07.2025
order
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 03:49:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8092] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2250/2025]
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant is in judicial custody since 01.05.2025 and he has been
arrested merely on the basis of apprehension. As a matter of fact,
there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident. The investigation is
complete and the charge-sheet has been filed. The appellant is
sought to be connected to the crime-in-question based on the
circumstantial evidence. While referring to the FIR, it is contended
that the complainant has alleged that deceased Swaroop Ram left
home at around 10-11 a.m. on 21.04.2025 and has not returned
back and has been missing since then. Based on the above facts,
an FIR was lodged on 29.04.2025.
2.1 He further submitted that the appellant is sought to be made
accused based on last seen theory. The statement of one
Kanhaiyalal was recorded, wherein he asserted that he had seen
deceased Swaroop Ram with the present appellant on 20.04.2025.
He also referred to the statement of Viram Ram, who too has
contended that he had seen deceased Swaroop Ram with the
present appellant on 20.04.2025 at around 2:00 p.m. He further
referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report and contended
that the allegation against the appellant is that he inflicted a
severe blow to the deceased by using stone, however, the stone
(Ex.6), which was sent to the FSL, was reported to have no
matching DNA profile.
Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 03:49:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8092] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2250/2025]
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
this appeal and submitted that statement of Kanhaiyalal was
recorded before the Court, wherein he has stated that there was
money transaction between the appellant and deceased Swaroop
Ram and amount was with the appellant and same was not
returned and on account of such dispute, the appellant has
committed the crime-in-question.
3.1 Further, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that the
appellant is only accused in the crime and looking to the fact that
the appellant is alleged with a heinous crime of Section 103(1) of
BNS, therefore, appellant may not be enlarged on bail.
4. Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties
so also considering the challan papers, the statement of
Kanhaiyalal and also considering the fact that the appellant is a
sole accused in the present crime, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage.
5. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 16/02/2026 at 03:49:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
