ORAL ORDER

1. Admit. Learned A.P.P. waives service of notice of admission for the respondent – State.

2. By way of the present appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the ‘Act, 1989’)., the appellant – original accused challenges the order dated 03/11/2023 passed in CR.MA No.734 of 2023 by the learned Additional Judge, Mehsana, whereby, the learned Court below refused to grant regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the appellant in connection with the F.I.R. being CR No.11206002230302 of 2023 registered with Visnagar Police Station.

3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant, learned Advocate for the first informant and learned APP for the State.

4. Mr.Pratik Barot, learned Advocate for the appellant –

accused would submit that appellant is behind bars since 01/05/2023 and charge-sheet is filed. He would further submit that all the relevant material and evidence are lying with the IO and now placed before the Court consideration. He would further submit that petitioner is innocent and falsely involved in the offence. He would further submit that as per charge-sheet, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and prosecution is required to prove complete chain of circumstances which leads and pointing out finger towards the accused only and no one else. He would further submit that prosecution case hinges upon three aspects viz., (01) CCTV footage obtained and reduced into the transcript in the Panchnama (02) discovery Panchnama whereby the mobile phone of the deceased was said to have been discovered at the instance of the accused from the spot of the incident and (03) the reconstruction of scene of the offence Panchnama. He would further submit that even if all these three evidence are accepted, none of them link the accused with the commission of crime. He would further submit that in a case of circumstantial evidence the prosecution is required to prove motive which in the present case is missing. He would further submit that as far as demonstration Panchnama and discovery Panchnama are concerned, both of them are hit by Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. As charge-sheet is already filed in the offence, both the provisions of the evidence Act play rigorous role. He would further submit that even if there is a single missing in chain of circumstance, the benefit thereof would go to the accused.

4.1 Mr.Pratik Barot, learned Advocate for the appellant – accused taking this Court through the PM report as well as the FSL report, in addition to the Panchnama recording the transcript of the CCTV footage as well as recovery and discovery Panchanam and reconstruction Panchnama, would submit that no injury was found on the genital of the deceased. He would submit that no spermatozoa or semen was found from the swab taken from the genital of the deceased and thus no evidence could be found against the appellant to prove the case of homicide or rape. Mr.Pratik Barot, learned Advocate would submit that appellant is ready to co-operate with the trial and will abide by any of the conditions that may be imposed by this Hon’ble Court. To buttress his arguments, he would rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jafarudheen & Ors. vs. State of Kerala [2022 (8) SCC 440]; Subramanya VS. State of Karnataka [2022 (15) Scale 390] and Darshan Singh vs.

State of Punjab [2024 (1) JT 40].

4.2 By making above submissions, he would urge to grant the bail to the appellant-accused.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate Ms.Chauhan appearing for the first informant would submit that accused is involved in the heinous crime and as per case of the prosecution accused has committed such a serious crime of murdering a person after rapping her and therefore if the bail is granted to the appellant, it would send a wrong signal to the society. She would further submit that at the instance of the petitioner the mobile phone of the