The court established that delays in implicating an individual and the absence of strong evidence are critical factors in determining bail eligibility.

Order :

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. 327/2023 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 302, 201 , 394 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

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

3. The allegation against the present appellant is of committing murder of Smt.Chhoti Devi on 09.11.2023.

4. Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards challan papers, learned counsel submitted that about 10 months after the murder of Smt.Chhoti Devi, police recorded statements of Dinesh and Preetam under Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein they have stated that they had heard the appellant and co-accused persons telling each other that they have murdered Smt.Chhoti Devi and therefore, if police comes to know about the said incident, they will flee away from Rajasthan. Learned counsel submitted that apart from the statements of Dinesh and Preetam, there is no other incriminating material or evidence available on record indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged crime. The investigation against the appellant has already been concluded and challan has been filed before the competent criminal court and therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars till conclusion of the trial pending against him.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the appellant and co-accused persons have been implicated in the present case about 10 months after the alleged incident which occurred on 9.11.2023 solely on the basis of the statements of Dinesh and Preetam. Learned Public Prosecutor was also not in a position to refute the fact that no sharp/blunt weapon allegedly used in commission of alleged crime has been recovered at the instance of the present appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the appellant influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice in case he is enlarged on bail.

6. Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at bar, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

7. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara is set aside. It is ordered that the accused- appellant Kaluram @ Kalulal S/o Shri Rampal arrested in connection with F.I.R. 327/2023 registered at Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara 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.