Gokul Chand Kudi Son of Bhajnaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:38776]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.2276/2025

Gokul Chand Kudi Son Of Bhajnaram, Resident Of Chala, Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner is Confined In District Jail Sikar)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Sunil Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Makkhanlal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Bhudoli, Police Station Sadar Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kalyan Chand Surela, Adv. with Ms. Anita, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

20/09/2025

¶14

The criminal appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sikar (hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial court’) whereby the learned trial court has dismissed the second bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

¶15

The appellant has been arrested in FIR No.146/2022, registered at Police Station Thoi, District Sikar for the offence(s)

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:38776]

[CRLAS-2276/2025]

punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 427, 382 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that accusedappellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is contended that name of the appellant do not mention in the FIR and later on the complainant has implicated the appellant along with the other co-accused Vikram. It is also contended that the appellant has not used any abusive language towards the complainant and the appellant was not knowing the complainant. The charge-sheet against the appellant has already been submitted and the injuries sustained to injured was found to simple blunt in nature, the appellant is in custody since 08.07.2025 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellant may be allowed.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and contended that the appellant is a habitual offender and against him 8 similar nature of cases are pending, therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellant may be dismissed.

¶22

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶23

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted, the name of the appellant is not in the FIR and the injuries caused to the injured were found to be simple blunt in nature and trial of the case may take considerable time, this Court deems it proper to allow the appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:38776]

[CRLAS-2276/2025]

(3 of 4)

Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is allowed and order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sikar is set aside. It is directed that appellant - Gokul Chand Kudi Son Of Bhajnaram, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.146/2022, registered at Police Station Thoi, District Sikar, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶28

The accused-appellant is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month before the concerned Police Station till conclusion of the trial. The SHO of the concerned Police Station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-appellant and shall send the presence report of the accused-appellant on the same day to the concerned trial Court every month without any delay.

¶29

The accused-appellant is directed to submit his present address along with his mobile number to the concerned S.H.O. within 7 days from his release and the concerned S.H.O. shall verify the said address and the mobile number. In case if the appellant changes his address or mobile number he shall submit the same before the concerned S.H.O. and also before the concerned learned trial Court. The learned trial Judge shall also verify the address and the contact details of the surety through concerned S.H.O. before releasing the accused-appellant on bail. In case of any breach of the aforementioned conditions, the

¶30

[2025:RJ-JP:38776] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2276/2025]

¶31

learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the accused-appellant for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶32

A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned S.H.O. for its strict compliance.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-18

Gokul Chand Kudi Son of Bhajnaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gokul Chand Kudi Son of Bhajnaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Sharma @ Sukya S/O Shree Radheshyam, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijaypal S/O Vishambhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam S/O Lakshminarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hardanaram Kadawasara Bishnoi S/O Late Shri Babulal Bishnoi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Alfej S/O Abdul Matin Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kanwarlal Alias Chigan Lal S/O Shri Gulabchand Vs State of Rajasthan