The court's decision to grant bail was based on the prosecutrix's statement and the length of the trial, highlighting the importance of evidence and the practical considerations of trial duration in bail decisions.

Headnote:
Bail - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act - The court set aside the order rejecting the bail application and granted bail to the accused-appellant based on the prosecutrix's statement and the length of the trial.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed an appeal under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act against the rejection of his bail application in connection with a case involving offenses under Sections 342 & 376D of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecutrix did not name the appellant in her statement and mentioned that she did not know the appellant. Considering the length of the trial, the court set aside the order rejecting the bail application and granted bail to the accused-appellant.
Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant, based on the charges against him.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the prosecutrix's statement and the length of the trial, leading to the conclusion that the order rejecting the bail application cannot be sustained.
Final Decision: The instant appeal was allowed, and the impugned order rejecting the bail application was set aside. The accused-appellant was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing the specified bonds.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Garg, J. - The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.162/2022, Police Station Sojat City, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 342 & 376D of the IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act against the order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Pali, whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Earlier appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 06.09.2022 with liberty to file afresh after recording the statement of prosecutrix.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the now prosecutrix has been examined as PW.5 before the trial Court and she did not named the present appellant in her statement and in cross-examination she has clearly mentioned that she do not know the present appellant. The prosecutrix was a major. The appellant is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. The learned court below has grossly erred in law and facts as well in declining to release the appellant on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Pali, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, Aarif Khan S/o Bundu Khan, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.162/2022, Police Station Sojat City, District Pali shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document