The court emphasized the principle of parity in bail decisions, allowing bail when co-accused with similar charges have been granted bail, especially when the accused is not directly named in the FIR.

Order :

1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘trial Court’) in Bail Application No.174/2024 filed by the accused-appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C., whereby, the application was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accused- appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case with the aid of Section 120-B IPC. Learned counsel further submits that the present appellant has not been named in the FIR as regards the alleged incident. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-appellant is in custody since 03.06.2024 and he is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery.

3. Learned counsel further submits that as per the contents of the FIR, one Krishna Bansrota and one unknown person had inflicted firearm injuries upon the complainant and there is no allegation against the present accused-appellant about his involvement in the alleged incident, therefore, the appeal of the accused-appellant may be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that there is an evidence collected during investigation which shows involvement of the accused-appellant in the conspiracy for committing the alleged offence. He also submits that the other criminal cases are also pending against the accused-appellant, therefore, appeal of the accused-appellant may kindly be dismissed.

5. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the case diary.

6. The present FIR has been lodged for an offence that one Krishna Bansrota and one unknown person came to the spot and had inflicted firearm injury to the complainant-injured.

7. On perusal of the case diary and the contents of the FIR, it is revealed that the accused appellant has been implicated in this case with the aid of Section 120-B IPC and it is revealed that the complainant in the FIR has categorically stated that he was not known to the accused-appellant except one Krishna Bansrota and after arrest of the accused-appellant, no test identification parade was conducted.

8. The co-accused, namely, Pankaj, Jarif and Surendra who have also been implicated in this case with the aid of Section 120-B IPC have already been enlarged on bail by orders of this Court.

9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts so also the fact that the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and so as to maintain the parity and the fact that the case of the present accused-appellant is not distinguishable from the case of the other co-accused, this Court without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to allow the appeal filed by the accused-appellant under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act.

10. Accordingly, this criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST Act is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sawai Madhopur is set aside. It is directed that accused-appellant named above shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.68/2024 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Gangapur City provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.