IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is the rule, and incarceration should be the exception, requiring careful consideration of the nature of the crime and potential for witness tampering.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is preferred under section 14A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) arising out of F.I.R. No. 55/2022 for offences under sections 115, 342, 343, 364, 302, 201, 120B, 37 of I.P.C. and under sections 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

2. In a nutshell the background of the matter in hand is that an F.I.R. bearing number 55/2022 was registered by the complainant–respondent no. 2 at Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer on 07.02.2022 for offence under section 365 of I.P.C. (Annexure-1). Resultant to which, after concluding the investigation the police authorities submitted a charge-sheet against seven accused persons, including the appellant.

3. Learned Counsel representing the appellant had averred that the appellant is incarcerated from a prolonged time (approximately 38 months); is a young man and is the sole bread-earner of the family. Moreover, the instant appeal is preferred under the light of the provisions of the fundamental and the constitutional guarantees as enshrined under Article(s) 21 and 39A of the Constitution of India. It was further submitted that the material witnesses i.e. PW-1 to PW-2 are duly examined however, thirty-two witnesses are yet to be examined. Hence, it can be inferred that the trial shall take a long time to culminate.

4. Moreover, the witnesses that are examined till now have not supported the story of the prosecution. Further, it was contended that the co-accused (as named in the same F.I.R. and charge-sheet) are already enlarged on bail – Aditya Kishore Sharma vide order dated 28.07.2023, Gautam Singh vide order dated 06.11.2023, Devendra Kumar Yadav @Manoj Yadav vide order dated 06.11.2023. Further, it was contended that no criminal antecedents are registered against the appellant.

5. Nonetheless, with the implementation of the new criminal laws, new spheres of consideration are opened, as considering the period of sentence and if the accused has already undergone one-third of the said punishment then he/she ought to be enlarged on bail.

6. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application no. 13525/2023 titled as Rakesh @ Rodu Vs. the State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application no. 14954/2023 titled as Rupak Chaterji Vs. the State of Rajasthan and the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Data Ram Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22, Sumeet Saluja Vs. State of U.P. through CBI reported in (2015) 17 SCC 210 and S.B. Criminal Bail Application no. 861/2021 titled as Khet Singh Vs. State through PP and had submitted that it is a settled position that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; hence, the appellant ought to be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor had vehemently opposed the instant appeal and had averred that the accused-appellant preferred the fourth bail application, nonetheless, the same was rejected vide order dated 23.08.2024. Moreover, vide order dated 18.04.2024 this Court after hearing the matter at length had dismissed the third bail application of the co-accused Hari @ Langda (mafia). The said order also notes the crucial factors, considering which, the said bail application was dismissed i.e. umpteen umber of criminal antecedents registered against the accused-applicant therein. It was further contended that the accused-appellant herein, is/was also in acquaintance of the said person, therefore, there is plausibility that if enlarged on bail, the accused-appellant might tamper the evidences and influence/coerce the witnesses.

8. Further, learned counsel had averred that a recovery of Rs. Two Lacs is made from the accused. Moreover, the contents of the F.I.R. and the erstwhile bail dismissal orders categorically state the threat and terror that the accused-appellant along with the other accused have made/spre