Bail applications under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST Act require careful consideration of the nature of the alleged offence and the evidence of involvement.

ORDER :

(Sameer Jain, J.)

The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.168/2023 registered at Police Station Piplu, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 143, 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the incident of 27.06.2023, FIR was filed belatedly on 29.06.2023 by a complainant who was not even present there at the time. In the FIR, the present petitioners were not named and some other 14 accused were implicated by name. As per the PMR, the deceased, who was a sand smuggler, died due to asphyxiation and the death was not homicidal. As per medical report, out of the total 14 injuries sustained by the deceased, 3 injuries were about 15 days old and the other 11 injuries were also simple in nature and on non vital parts of the body. Further, the present petitioners, four of whom have no criminal antecedents, have been made accused merely on the basis of confessional statements made by the other accused persons to the police. Furthermore, some of the co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court itself. Even otherwise, it is submitted that since investigation is complete and charge sheet has been filed, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind bars till conclusion of trial, which is likely to take a long time.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant contends that the petitioners are part of the prominent sand mafia and had killed the victim to make an example out of him. The victim died of asphyxiation, which was a direct result of multiple injuries inflicted upon his body through a blunt object. Learned counsel for the complainant further contends that the petitioners are influential persons who are adversely affecting the investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant seriously disputes the contention of the petitioners that the death was not homicidal, as the victim was left to bled out after being attacked with blunt weapons and sustaining as many as 11 injuries, which if taken cumulatively would lead to the undeniable conclusion that the death was homicidal, even if the cause of death is determined to be on account of asphyxiation.

4. Heard and considered.

5. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, considering that PMR reflects 14 injuries on the body of the deceased, 11 of which were incurred right before death of the deceased; that the offence alleged is heinous in nature; that prima facie, the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged offence cannot be ruled out, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is called for in the present matter.

6. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.