Bail cannot be denied based solely on serious allegations without credible evidence; procedural fairness in investigations is essential.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The appellants being accused Nos.2, 3 and 6 are before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) in Crime No.122/2024 of Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 61 (2), 189, 191(2), 103 r/w 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘ BNS 2023’) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015, now pending before the learned II Addl. District and Sessions & Special Judge, Vijayapura in Spl.Case (SC/ST) No.66/2024, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Prakash Melinkeri.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, the informant-respondent No.2 filed the first information on 08.08.2024 with Traffic Police Station, Vijayapura, against unknown persons alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 187 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under Sections 106(1) and 281 of the BNS 2023. It is stated that, on the very date, when the deceased Ravi was proceeding on his motorcycle, the drove of the Innova car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the hind portion of the motorcycle, as a result of which, the rider of the motorcycle fell down. The driver of the Car had not stopped the vehicle, but on the other hand, dragged the deceased with the vehicle for some distance and caused the accident. It is stated that, there were three eye-witnesses to the incident and their statements were also recorded by the Investigating Officer.

On 12.08.2024, the informant filed the second information with the Gandhi Chowk Police Station, Vijayapura, against the accused Nos.1 and others alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Sections 103 of BNS 2023. The FIR in Crime No.122/2024 came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. It is stated that during the investigation, accused No.1 was apprehended and on the basis of his statement, appellant Nos.1 and 2 were also apprehended on 13.08.2024 and appellant No.3 was apprehended on 16.08.2024. After apprehending the appellants, further statements of the eye-witnesses, who are cited as CWs.18 to 20 were recorded, according to which the eye-witnesses said to have identified all these appellants to state that, accused No.2 was driving the car in question, accused Nos.3 and 6 were the inmates of the car at the time of accident. It is stated that, accused No.2 had came to the police station in the very same offending car and the same was seized when it was parked in front of the police station. The Investigating Officer after conducting investigation filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 6. Now the matter is pending for trial before the Trial Court.

3. Heard Sri M.S. Sham Sundar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Laxmikanth G., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellants are entitled for grant of bail under Section 14-A of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015?”

5. My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

REASONS

6. The facts narrated above discloses that, the informant filed the information on 08.08.2024 i.e., on the very date of the accident with Traffic Police Station,