The court exercised discretion in favor of the appellant based on the nature of the offence, the appellant's participation, and the gravity of the assertions against the appellant.

ORDER :

1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No.66 of 2022 before the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide C.R. No.11199006211539 of 2021 with Ankleshwar Rural Police Station, Bharuch for the offence punishable u/s. 302, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2-v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act"), wherein the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch rejected the said application on 08.02.2022.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocities Act.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to law and evidence on record and the appellant is absolutely innocent person and has not committee any of the alleged offence and there is no prima facie case against the appellant. It is further submitted that the FIR is under the Atrocity Act is the gross misuse of the benefits which have been granted in favour of the reserved category by the Government. It is further submitted that from the entire chargesheet, it is nowhere directly or indirectly coming out on record nor there is any direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the main offence which took place in 2 different parts on 2 different times and merely on the basis of earlier incident of first part of beating the victim and then leaving the place of incident, the appellant is implicated for offence of 302 as well when the entire case of prosecution itself in the FIR and in the chargesheet is that accused no.2 Mayuddin had come later on at the place of incident possessing knife and had given knife blows to the victim when no other accused was present. Moreover, weapon is recovered at the instance of accused no.2- Mayuddin from him during the investigation and his clothes were bloodstained and neither there is any recovery or discovery from the present appellant nor any bloodstain on the clothes were found. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08.02.2022 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch and release the appellant on bail.

5. Learned APP for the respondent-State as well as learned advocate for the respondent no.2 have strongly opposed the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant. Referring the complaint as well as the statement of Sunil Shantilal Vasava as well as Ratanben Chelabhai Masrubhai Dabhi, they have submitted that intention of the present appellant is very clear from the beginning that he decided to commit murder of the deceased as he was in love affair with the sister of the present appellant. It is further submitted that all the four accused persons were called by the present appellant. It is further submitted that before the incident, appellant and other accused persons were present and kick and fists blows were given by the present appellant along with the co-accused persons and threat was also given by the present appellant to commit murder of the deceased. It is further submitted that prima facie, involvement of the present appellant is established by the prosecution and appellant has played active role in commission of the offence. Hence, it is requested by learned APP for the respondent – State as well as learned advocate for the respondent no.2 to dismiss this appeal.

6. Having considered the facts of the case, submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State and police papers produced on record, if we consider the FIR dated 04.12.2021 filed by the complainant viz. Shaileshbhai Vasava residing at Ankleshwar, it is alleged that b