The main legal point established is that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail, and the court has the discretion to consider various factors when deciding bail applications based on parity.

JUDGMENT

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. - Matter is heard through video conferencing.

2. I.A.No.3153/2020, an application for exemption from filing typed copy of the document is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.

3. Present first Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 14- A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against the order dated 3.3.2020 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri; whereby, the application of the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail has been rejected.

4. Appellant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.96/2019 registered at Police Station Khaniyadhana, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and section 3 (1) (f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (recently amended).

5. It is submitted by learned counsel of the appellant-Ganesha @ Ganesh that Ganesha himself belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Caste, therefore, the case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not be made out. It is further submitted that the co-accused Shripat has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 18.12.2019 passed in Cr.A.No.10715/2019 under section 438 of Cr.P.C. Other co-accused Hartum Singh and Manmohan Sharma have already been granted bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. vide order dated 26.6.2019 passed in Cr.A.No.4927/2019 and vide order dated 28.6.2019 passed in Cr.A.No.5328/2019 respectively. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that investigation and trial will take its own time. The present appellant is innocent and he has not committed any offence. There is specific enquiry report made by the S.D.O.P in this case, wherein it is stated that no case is made out against the present appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in support of his arguments he has filed the documents Annexure A/3 and A/5 and also in the enquiry report it is speficially observed by the enquiry officer/S.D.O.P that no offence is made out against the present appellant and the present appellant is on same footing as that of co-accused Shripat, who has already been granted anticipatory bail on 18.12.2019, hence, prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the present appellant in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 .

6. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that it is true that other co-accused persons Hartum Singh and Manmohan Sharma have been released on bail on filing the application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. and other co-accused person namely Shripat, who has been granted bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C., is only witness to the document, but the present appellant has actively participated in the alleged crime with Manmohan Sharma in selling out the land of the complainant and committed offence under section 420 read with section 120-B of IPC along with section 3 (1) (f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, therefore, prayed that there is no parity with co-accused Shripat, hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail application of the appellant.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the record.

8. It is true that co-accused Shripat has been granted bail on 18.12.2019 under section 438 of Cr.P.C. and other co-accused persons namely Hartum Singh and Manmohan Sharma have been granted bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. It is also apparent from the record itself that co-accused Shripat was only witness to the executed document, but the role of the present appellant as alleged by the prosecution is that he has sold out the land costing Crores of Rupees on a nominal cost with the he