Jay Prakash @ Banti S/O Madan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

This criminal appeal has been filed by the accusedappellants u/S 14 SC/ST Prevention from Atrocities Act, 1989, assailing the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Special Court, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bundi (Raj.), in Criminal Mis. (Bail)(C.I.S.) No. 263/2025 filed by the appellants under section 483 BNSS in connection with the FIR No. 247/2025 registered at police station Talera District Bundi for offence u/S 189(2), 126(2), 106(1), 324(2) of BNS, 2023 and u/S 3(2)(v), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

¶17

[2026:RJ-JP:454]

¶18

[CRLAS-2803/2025]

¶19

(2 of 4)

¶20

1989 and u/S 3/25 of the Arms Act whereby the bail application was dismissed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. He also submits that the injury sustained by the injured Suresh, which has been opined to be dangerous to life, is said to be inflicted by the firearm. He further submits that there is no allegation against the accused appellants of using firearm and the injury, which has been opined to be dangerous to life, was caused by the firearm and is attributed to co-accused Arjun.

¶22

The learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that the case of the present accused-appellants is in no manner distinguishable from the case of co-accused Aqib Hussain @ Rinku, who has already been ordered to be enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (sb) No.2510/2025. He also submits that the accused-appellants are in custody since 03.10.2025 and the Police after completion of the investigation in the matter has already submitted charge-sheet. Therefore, the custody of the accused-appellants are no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery. It is also submitted that the trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, the accused-appellants deserve to be released on bail.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that he has already intimated/informed the complainant about filing/hearing of this appeal.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the accused-appellants are involved in a criminal case

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:454]

[CRLAS-2803/2025]

punishable u/S 109(1) BNS read with other provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in which the maximum sentence is upto 10 years.

¶29

Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the challan papers.

¶30

On consideration of the investigation report, it is revealed that the offence punishable u/S 109(1) BNS has been added in view of an injury sustained by the injured Suresh from the firearm which has been opined to be dangerous to life.

¶31

As per the investigation report, the injury which has been opined to be dangerous to life is attributed to one Arjun and not to the present accused-appellants. On scrutiny of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the Court finds that the case of the present accused-appellants is in no manner distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Aqib Hussain @ Rinku, who has already been ordered to be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants and the facts stated above, this Court is of the opinion that accused-appellants deserve to be released on bail.

¶33

Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed by the accusedappellants under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is allowed and the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the Special Court, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Bundi (Raj.) is set aside. It is directed that accused-appellants named above shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for

[2026:RJ-JP:454]

[CRLAS-2803/2025]

(4 of 4)

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.

¶38

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶39

SHRUTI SHARMA /312

Jay Prakash @ Banti S/O Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jay Prakash @ Banti S/O Madan Lal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Mohan S/O Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Priya W/O Hariram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Goyal S/O Shri Sushil Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

The Food Corporation of India Vs M/S Mohd Shamim Gauri

Deenu @ Deen Mohammad S/O Nasru Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishuv Khan S/O Late Shri Rajjak Vs State of Rajasthan