The court emphasized that vague allegations do not justify denial of bail, particularly when the accused claims self-defense and has no criminal history.

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. No.291/2024 registered at Police Station Aasind, District Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 21.11.2024 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 and perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per the prosecution, on 27.08.2024, when the complainant along with Dinesh Bheel, Bheru @ Nena Ram and the deceased- Rahul Bheel went to the house of Shambhu Singh i.e. the present appellant to make a complaint that he along with few other boys had unnecessarily fought with Bheru @ Nena Ram Bheel and Bherulal S/o Ladulal. Thereafter, the present appellant along with co-accused Suresh Singh, Chetan Singh and Thaneshwar Singh without any provocation from the complainant’s side started beating them lathis. As per the prosecution, in the alleged incident, the deceased- Rahul Bheel suffered a head injury, who succumbed to the injury while undergoing treatment at a Government Hospital, Aasind.

4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the appellant. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, complainant party was aggressor in the present case and the appellant and other accused persons have only exercised their right to private defense by using minimum power. The alleged head injury was inflicted to the deceased by the appellant in exercise of his right to private defense. The appellant only inflicted a single blow on the head of the deceased which indicates that he had no motive to commit the alleged crime or in other words, he had only acted to defend himself.

5. 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 may be granted to the accused-appellant.

6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

7. 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 prima facie finds that the allegation of causing head injury which led to death of the deceased is omnibus in nature. The fatal injury has not been attributed to a particular person. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that though as per the prosecution, one blunt weapon (lathi) has been recovered at the instance of the present appellant but another blunt weapon (lathi) containing blood stains has also been recovered at the instance of co-accused Suresh Singh.

8. This Court further prima facie finds that the appellant does not have any criminal antecedents and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of appellant influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court.

9. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2024 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 Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Hajari Singh Rawat arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.291/2024 registered at Police Station Aasind, 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