Rajasthan HC Grants Bail for Lack of Specific Role

Granting relief to an accused facing allegations under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that indefinite incarceration is unwarranted when no specific overt acts or particular weapons are attributed to the individual. This decision underscores the judiciary's scrutiny of omnibus allegations in criminal appeals involving multi-accused scenarios, ensuring that personal liberty is not curtailed based on vague or collective accusations.

A Single Bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal presided over the criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court was hearing a challenge against an order passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Cases, Jalore, which had previously denied bail to the accused-appellant Mukesh Kumar.

Court Scrutinizes Specificity of Allegations

The Court observed that while the principal allegations for the most serious injuries were directed at a co-accused, the current appellant had been implicated through general statements. After examining the case diary and the injury reports of the victims, Javara Ram and Ganpat Lal, the Bench noted the lack of specific evidence linking the appellant to the actual infliction of wounds.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties; the facts and circumstances of the case; the challan papers and the fact that no specific role has been attributed to the present appellant in causing injuries to the injured persons, namely, Javara Ram and Gopal Lal; that none of the injured has assigned any specific role to the present appellant; and that there is no allegation as to the weapon allegedly possessed by the appellant at the time of the incident, this Court is of the considered view that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind bars for an indefinite period."

Directions Issued by the Court

The Court has following directions: "It is ordered that the accused-appellant-Mukesh Kumar S/o Chamna Ram arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."

Background:

The matter originated from FIR No. 107/2026 registered at Sanchor Police Station, involving several sections of the BNS, 2023 and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the accused party had assaulted Javara Ram and Ganpat Lal. Medical reports indicated that Javara Ram sustained five injuries, three of which were grievous, while Ganpat Lal sustained six simple injuries caused by a blunt weapon.

The appellant's counsel argued that the investigation and witness statements specifically identified co-accused Pukh Raj as the person who inflicted the head injury on Javara Ram. It was contended that Mukesh Kumar (Appellant No. 2) was falsely implicated based on conjectures and surmises. During the proceedings, the appeal qua Appellant No. 1 (Pukh Raj) was withdrawn by his counsel. The High Court, after perusing the material and noting that no specific role or weapon was linked to Mukesh Kumar, set aside the lower court's order and granted him bail.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1151/2026
NeutralCitation: 2026:RJ-JP:32369
Case Title: Pukh Raj & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 107