Absence of direct evidence of mens rea justified granting bail under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.600/2024 registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 108 & 3(5) of BNS; Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that co-accused person namely Netram (S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.2068/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that there is no direct evidence available on record indicating that the appellant had mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case; the appellant is in custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.

3. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate that the deceased due to bad behaviour of the appelant was left with no option but to commit suicide. Learned counsel further submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the appellant, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by this Court. The order dated 29.01.2025 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“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.600/2024 registered at Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(2) (v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Hanumangarh 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.

Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased on 20.10.2024 committed suicide by jumping in the Indra Gandhi Canal with his two children namely Parth and Manvi. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that charge-sheet indicates that wife of the deceased- Urmila was living separately from him and was having a mutual relationship with the present appellant. Learned counsel submitted that as per the investigating agency, due to the behaviour, his broken marriage and the mutual relationship of his wife with the present appellant, the deceased felt harassed/ humiliated, somuch so he felt that his self- esteem and self-respect have been tarnished and, therefore, he committed suicide.

Learned counsel further submitted that though as per the prosecution, the deceased felt harassed and humiliated due to relationship of present appellant with his wife but there is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant behaved with the deceased in a manner which may constitute some overt act, inactions on his part to aid/instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in custody and trial of the case will take su