The court established that the denial of bail must be justified, especially when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances.

ORDER

1. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 complainant despite service.

2. These appeals have been preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 being aggrieved of the order dated 15.03.2023 and 19.04.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Merta rejecting the bail applications preferred on behalf of the appellants who are in custody in connection with FIR No.32/2023, Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 306, 384 and 120B IPC and Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Heard learned counsel representing the appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that coaccused Mahaveer Chand (S.B. Criminal Appeal No.328/2023) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2023.

5. The order dated 27.04.2023 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

'The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.32/2023, registered at Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 384, 306 & 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Merta, Nagaur whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that even from the perusal of dying declaration, it would be evident that though certain allegations have been levelled against the petitioner by the deceased in dying declaration but the same does not show any intention of the accused to abet or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Accused-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.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned public prosecutor and also perused the material available on record, so also the dying declaration.

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, without commenting upon the merits / demerits of the case, 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.

Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.03.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Merta, Nagaur is set aside. It is ordered that the accused appellant Mahaveer Chand S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Nahar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.32/2023, registered at Police Station Peelwa, District Nagaur shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- 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.'

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that case of the present appellants is not distinguishable from that of the coaccused Mahaveer Chand who has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the appellants are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellants.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case,