The court considered the similarity of allegations against the accused-appellant and the co-accused who had been granted bail, the filing of charge-sheets in both cases, and the fact that the trial would take a long time, and decided that the bail application deserved to be accepted.

JUDGMENT

1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.41/2020 registered at Police Station Kiesherai Patan, District Bundi registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 308, 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 09.04.2021 passed by Special Court, SC and ST Cases, Bundi,( for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 308, 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of S.C./S.T. Act) whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that cross FIR has been filed in the present case and in both the cases charge-sheet has been filed; for FIR No.42/2020 filed by Ramesh (appellant), charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC has been filed after investigation; whereas, in the present case, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 308 IPC; five injuries have been caused to appellant himself and out of the said injuries, injury No.1, 4 and 5 are having multiple fracture and declared as grievous in nature; land dispute is pending between the parties before A.D.M., Keshorai Patan, District Bundi; benefit of bail has already been granted to co-accused-Ghanshyam; allegation levelled against appellant and co-accused-Ghanshyam are similar in nature; benefit of bail was also granted to co-accused persons, namely, Govind, Kuldeep and Ganpat Lal in cross-case. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant by allowing the present appeal.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that these cases are not cross-cases; two separate incidents took place; first attempt was made by the appellant's side and other co-accused and after the incident when they ran away, they were chased by the complainant's side and thus, second incident took place at another place; 11 other cases were earlier registered against the accused-appellant. Learned counsel further stated that bail bond for a period of six months were submitted by accused-appellant and co-accused-Ghanshyam; bail bond for a period of six months for maintaining peace & law and order recording submission of bail bonds by accused-appellant and co-accused-Ghanshyam was passed on 27.12.2019, but despite that, by breaching the conditions of the said bail bonds, the present incident took place in January, 2020; after present FIR, one another case was registered against the accused-appellant.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that F.I.R. was filed for the cognizable offences by both the sides against each other; charge-sheet has been filed in both the cases; allegations against the accused- appellant are similar in nature to that of the co-accused- Ghanshyam, who has already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.02.2020 (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.500/2020). It is also pertinent to mention here that benefit of bail was also granted to other accused-persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh & Ganpat Lal by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2020 (Bail Application No.2905/2020) and to the accused Govind, vide order dated 26.02.2020 (Bail Application No.2100/2020); charge-sheet in both the cases has already been filed; trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the appellant deserves to