IMPORTANT POINT
The court reinforced the principle that bail should not be denied based on vague allegations and emphasized the importance of direct evidence in determining the necessity of pre-trial detention.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.) :

1. The SHO, Police Station Rashmi, District Chittorgarh sent a letter dated 30.05.2024 to learned Public Prosecutor regarding effecting service upon the complainant. Proof of service be taken on record. Despite service, no one has appeared on behalf of the victim/complainant.

2. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-appellant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of uncle of the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

5. Heard representative of the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. There is no direct allegation upon the petitioner for causing injuries to the deceased. The bail application of the several co-accused of this case have been allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2024 in S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) Nos. 739/2024, 626/2024, 627/2024, 628/2024, 629/2024, 630/2024No, 670/2024, 671/2024, 672/2024. The relevant para Nos.2 to 9 of the said bail application is reproduced herein below:

“2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have falsely been implicated in the present case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. it is submitted that the deceased had received no injuries and the cause of death was heart attack. None of the alleged acts brings the case within the purview of the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The appellants are behind the bars since long. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars. They, therefore, pray that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellants.

3. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. They submit that the appellants alongwith other accused made assault on a peaceful procession with dangerous weapons in a pre-mediated manner. One person died in the incident. Thus, looking to the seriousness of the offences, the appellants do not deserve the benefit of bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary.

5. Prima facie it is revealing that on 19.03.2024 at 09.30 p.m. a religious procession of a particular community was going on and on the way, a clash erupted between them and the people of other community. It was a case of affray or may be a case of hurting of religious sentiments, but it is not discernible as to who among the large number of mob was responsible for eruption of affray. At the same time, it is also not ascertainable that who caused injuries to the members of the other party. There is no religion of a mob. When a large group of people is alleged to have committed an offence, it becomes very tedious task to make separation between the innocent and the real culprits. Generally when some noise is erupted in a crowed area, several persons gather there, some out of curiosity and some