Sumit Bheel S/O Roopchand Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6621]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 270/2026

¶4

Sumit Bheel S/o Roopchand, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Gadhwala Pada, Ward 31, Baran, Police Station- Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.). (Accused Is Confined At District Jail Baran.)

¶5

Ankush Balmiki S/o Akash, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Mandola, Ward, Baran, Police Station- Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.). (Accused Is Confined At District Jail Baran.)

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶9

……..Accused Appellant

¶10

1. Shri Rahul Gurjar S/o Shri Chaturbhuj, Gurjar Shivaji Colony Baran Kotwali Baran Raj.

¶11

----Complainant Respondent

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Jagdish Nagar
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Laxman Meena
For State	: Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Addl.G.A. cum P.P.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶14

Order

¶15

12/02/2026

¶16

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ the Trial Court’) in Criminal Misc. Case No.10/2026, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6621]

[CRLAS-270/2026]

bail application filed on behalf of the appellants in connection with FIR No.485/2025 registered with Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 118(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶21

The learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that the accused-appellants have been implicated in this case with false and fabricated facts. He further submits that no specific overt act has been assigned to appellant- Sumit Bheel. He also submits that all the injuries said to have been sustained by the complainant party, have been found to be simple in nature. He further submits that the accused-appellants are in custody since 29.12.2025, therefore, he prays that they may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal.

¶23

The learned counsel for the complainant on the other submits that the allegations against the accused-appellants along with two other accused-persons are of inflicting injuries to Rahul and Kuldeep by using knife.

¶24

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and so also perused the case diary.

¶25

On perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that as per

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6621]

[CRLAS-270/2026]

the Medico Legal Report, the complainant has sustained total five injuries and all the five injuries are by sharp weapon, but the same are opined to be simple in nature.

¶30

Taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained by the injured complainant party and the fact that the accused-appellants are in custody since 29.12.2025, this Court feels that the accused-appellants deserve to be released on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST Act is allowed and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) is set aside. It is directed that accused-appellants shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.485/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶32

Pending application/s, if any, also stand/s disposed of.

¶33

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶34

ARTI SHARMA /160

Sumit Bheel S/O Roopchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Bheel S/O Roopchand 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

Hariom Goyal S/O Shriniwas Goyal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Murari Lal Saini S/O Brajmohan Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Rinku S/O Mathuralal Vs the State of Rajasthan

M/S Devi Construction Co. Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajranglal Son of Shri Shyoji Lal Sharma Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (Jvvnl)

Shri Ramniwas Dhanka, S/O Late Shri Prabhunarayan Dhanka, Vs Smt. Komal Dhanka Alias Kamlesh, W/O Shri Manish Dhanka