Naveen Maratha S/O Ganesh Maratha, Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:24981]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1138/2026 URN: CRLAS / 2101U / 2026

Naveen Maratha S/o Ganesh Maratha, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Lanka Colony, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran).

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Rohit S/o Balram Koli, R/o Guna, Police Station Kotwali Guna, Madhya Pradesh, Presently R/o Lanka Colony, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Nagar
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Aarti Sharma,P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶12

Order

¶13

06/07/2026

¶14

This criminal appeal has been filed by the accusedappellant under Section 14 (A)(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, assailing the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Court of Special Judge Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Baran, District Baran, in Bail Application No. 185/2026 filed by the accused-appellant under Section 483 BNSS in connection with the FIR No. 627/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offences under Section 115(2), 126(2), 352, 189(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the bail application was dismissed.

[2026:RJ-JP:24981]

[CRLAS-1138/2026]

(2 of 3)

Learned Public Prosecutor states that the victim/ complainant has already been intimated through the SHO of concerned Police Station as regards the filing and hearing of this criminal appeal.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of false and fabricated facts. He further submits that the accused-appellant is in custody since 24.12.2025 and the injured witnesses i.e. complainants namely; Rohit, Sugna Bai and Sunita have been examined before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that the cause of injuries sustained by the complainant party have not been opined to be dangerous to life.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that there are specific allegations against the present accusedappellant in the statements of the injured witnesses as regards his involvement in inflicting injuries and in the crime, which is of serious nature, as the accused party has inflicted injuries after throwing chilly powder in the eyes of the injured witnesses. She also submits that there are large number of criminal cases registered against the accused-appellant, as is evident from the rejection order passed by the learned Court below.

¶21

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record, including the statements of the witnesses examined so far.

¶22

As far as the statements of the injured witnesses are concerned, there are specific allegations against the accused-

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:24981]

[CRLAS-1138/2026]

appellant of involvement and inflicting injuries after throwing chilly powder in their eyes.

¶27

On perusal of the injury report, it is revealed that the accused-appellant has inflicted grievous injuries and one of the injury has been inflicted on the vital part of the injured 'Ram Prasad'.

¶28

The rejection order passed by the Court below also reveals that as many as 20 other criminal cases have been registered against the accused-appellant out of which he has been convicted in 14 cases. In 4 cases, the proceedings of the criminal case have been closed in view of the compromise in between the parties. Looking to the number of criminal cases against the accused-appellant, in maximum of the cases there could be a possibility that in the other 4 cases where cases have settled with the compromise, the complainant party might have entered into compromise looking to the conduct of the accused-appellant so as to avoid any kind of danger to their life.

¶29

Taking into consideration the allegations against the accused-appellant more particularly the fact that inflicting injuries after throwing chilly powder in the eyes of the complainant party and also the fact that accused-appellant has already been convicted in 14 criminal case, this Court feels that so as to have a fair trial in the present criminal case, the accused-appellant does not deserves to be released on bail.

¶30

Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶31

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶32

1/SHRUTI SHARMA

Naveen Maratha S/O Ganesh Maratha, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Maratha S/O Ganesh Maratha, 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

Kuldeep Meena S/O Bablu Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramsahay Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Purushotam Verma Son of Shri Satyanarayan Verma Vs State of Rajasthan

Abhay Dhaka S/O Om Prakash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Yadav S/O Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Santra Meena Wife of Shri Premraj Meena Vs State of Rajasthan