ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

2. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 14A (1) (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 7.11.2019 passed by trial Court; whereby, application of appellant preferred under section 439 of CrPC has been rejected.

3. Appellant has been arrested on 19.7.2019 by Police Station Chachoda, District Guna in connection with Crime No. 129/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable under sections 341, 294, 506, 353,186 and 34 of IPC and section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that false case has been registered against the appellant and he is suffering confinement since 19.7.2019. He referred the evidence of Patwari of concerned area -Eshwar Malviya (PW1), Revenue Inspector - Harveer Singh (PW5), Patwari-Alok (PW6), Patwari-Deepesh Mangal (PW7), Patwari-Raghuveer Singh Yadav (PW8), Patwari -Shiv Paratap Singh (PW9), Patwari -Bajrang Bahadur Singh (PW10) and Patari Arvind Mehta (PW11) and other witnesses to submit that they have not supported the story of prosecution and they have been declared hostile. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to identify the appellant. Therefore, chance of tampering with the evidence and witnesses is remote. He prayed for bail on these grounds.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application by submitting that name of appellant figured in the statement of witnesses but now they are trying to help the accused persons, therefore, have not referred names of accused in their Court statements despite the fact that they are Government servants and if they do not support the story of prosecution then their act is unbecoming of a Government servant. He referred the statement under section 161 of CrPC of different witnesses who made statement under section 161 of CrPC and identified the culprits. Since the matter is of sand mining and the accused are involved in abstraction of sand illegally, therefore, no benefit can be given to them.

6. Heard.

7. From perusal of case diary, it appears that allegations are grave in nature because accused was involved in abstraction /transportation of sand. Two tractors with trolley have been seized in this regard. Witnesses although earlier referred the names of culprits including the present appellant in their statement under section 161 of CrPC but in their Court statement, these witnesses, who are either Patwaris, Revenue Inspectors or Tahsildar, as the case may be, turned hostile and did not support the story of prosecution in categorical terms, therefore, same appears to be a serious misconduct prima facie and attempt to interfere in the administration of justice on the part of those witnesses who are Government servants and supposed to check the menace of illegal activities including mining. Investigating Officer also showed reluctance in not conducting TIP to ensure the identity of all accused who were present on the spot at the time of commission of offence as referred above.

8. Since, these witnesses have not supported the story of prosecution, therefore, the present appellant is given benefit of doubt. However, he is getting the benefit of doubt on account of casualness/negligence of Government Officials, where they did not support the story of prosecution. Therefore, appeal is allowed without expressing any opinion on merits of the case.

9. It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. Five Lacs only) with two solvent sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

10. This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the appellant :

1. The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by