Insufficient evidence and lack of specific allegations against the appellant justified the granting of bail under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Order :

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.250/2024 registered at Police Station Bichhwal, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 103(1), 109(2), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

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

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the appellant and the other co-accused persons were having a land dispute with the complainant party and mainly owing to the aforesaid dispute between the parties, the appellant and the co-accused persons, on the date of the alleged incident, inflicted multiple injuries upon the deceased- Bajranglal who succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the statements of the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident namely Sitaram (injured), Satyanarayan (complainant) and Rahul Nayak, recorded under section 183 BNSS, learned counsel submitted that though as per the prosecution, the appellant was present at the place of occurrence with the other co-accused persons, however, no specific allegation of inflicting injuries upon the deceased with sharp/ blunt weapons has been levelled against the present appellant. The specific allegation of causing fatal injuries with sharp weapon upon the deceased- Bajranglal has been levelled against the co-accused Vijay, Shivlal, whereas allegation of inflicting injuries with blunt weapon upon the deceased and injured- Sitaram, has been levelled against co-accused Sohanlal, Shantilal, Shiv Kumar, Vijay Kumar S/o Gangaram, Raju, etc. Learned counsel contended that no sharp/ blunt weapons have been recovered at the instance of the present appellant.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant.

Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted that the appellant is involved in the heinous murder of Bajranglal. Learned counsel contended that the presence of the appellant at the place of the occurrence is well established in the present case. Sufficient material is available on record to indicate that due to some land dispute, the appellant along with the other co-accused persons on the date of the alleged incident in a pre-determined manner, committed the alleged crime. It was thus prayed that the instant appeal may be rejected.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances as available on record in entirety and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, on the date of the alleged incident, multiple injuries were inflicted upon the deceased Bajranglal and injured- Sitaram with blunt and sharp weapons by the co-accused persons. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that no specific allegation of causing any injury to the deceased or the injured- Sitaram has been levelled against the present appellant; no sharp/ blunt weapon has been recovered at the instance of the present appellant; merely a general aspersion of participating in the alleged crime has been levelled against the present appellant; the investigation against the appellant has already been completed; challan agains