IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that prolonged detention without trial is unjustified, especially when co-accused granted bail under similar circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. 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. 36/2024 registered at Police Station Bhaniyana, Dist. Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jaisalmer whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

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

3. Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the co-accused Dhakad @ Sagar Khan (S.B. Criminal Appeal (SB) No. 1072/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not worse than that of the case of the co-accused Dhaka @ Sagar Khan, who has already been enlarged on bail.

4. The order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Dhaka @ Sagar Khan is reproduced below for ready reference:

“(1) Instant Criminal appeal has been preferred to enlarge the appellant on bail under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment act 2015 and being aggrieved of the order dated 03.07.2024 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act Cases (Session Judge), Jaisalmer in Criminal Misc. Case No. 284/2024 rejecting the bail application preferred on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR No. 36/2024, Police Station Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer, for offences under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 IPC and Sections 3(1) (r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(2) Learned counsel representing the appellant vehemently urged that the appellant is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted against him; that entire allegations so leveled by the police against the appellant is totally false and baseless; that nothing has been recovered from possession of the appellant; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the appellant and alleged crime, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence. With the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present appeal be allowed and appellant may be enlarged on bail.

(3) From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 have strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant.

(4) It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the appellant; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by him, he does not deserve any leniency, rather they need to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

(5) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

(6) Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account totality of circumstances, in my considered opinion, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be completely overlooked. It is prima facie seen that injured Heera Ram has received injuries and after obtaining X-ray report, the Medical Jurist has opined fracture of radius and ulna bone which is not on the vital part of the body. Besides it, no opinion of the Medical Jurist is available on record as to dangerousness of the injury to the injured. The appellant is in custody since 18.05.2024; charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed; that the trial is