The court allows bail on grounds of parity and limited evidence against the appellant under the Atrocity Act.

ORDER

1. This is an appeal under Section 14(A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short) at the instance of the appellant- original accused for enlarging the appellant on regular bail in connection with FIR being C.R. No.I-52 of 2019 registered with Sihor Police Station, Bhavnagar for the offence punishable under Sections 306 , 506(2), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 , 38, 40 and 42 of the Gujarat Money Landers Act, 2011 and Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocity Act.

2. Heard Mr.Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant and Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP for respondent no.1-State and Mr.Harshit M. Karathia, learned advocate for respondent no.2-complainant.

3. Mr.Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant, has submitted that present appellant has wrongly been implicated in the alleged offence by the prosecution. However, as no evidence was available with the prosecution to involve present appellant in the offence, learned Trial Court has not considered the factual aspects and dismissed the application for releasing him on bail by an order dated 27.08.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1388 of 2019. It is further submitted that if the FIR is considered by the Court, it would clear that present appellant has falsely been implicated by the complainant. It is further submitted that after the arrest made by the Investigating Officer, the appellant was produced before learned Special Court, Bhavnagar and Investigating Officer sought remand and two days of remand were granted but nothing was found during the course of remand of the appellant. It is further submitted that so far as offence under the Atrocity Act is concerned, the same would not be applicable because the appellant and complainant as well as deceased all are belong to the SCST Community and therefore, the Atrocity Act would not be applicable. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, Investigating Officer only found diary which is maintained by the deceased. It is further submitted that co- accused viz. Rameshbhai Bachubhai Baraiya (Koli) having similar role of the appellant is enlarged on regular bail by an order dated 29.08.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1386/2019 as well as another co-accused viz. Ajaybhai Mangabhai Chudasama having similar role of the appellant is enlarged on regular bail by an order dated 23.09.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1672 of 2019. It is further submitted that no serious role was played by present appellant and therefore, on the ground of parity and also considering the nature of allegations, role attributed to the appellant, the appellant may be enlarged on regular bail by imposing suitable conditions. It is requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No.1388 of 2019 rejecting the prayer for releasing him on bail and to allow this appeal granting regular bail.

4. Per contra, Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned APP for the respondent-State as well as Mr.Harshit M. Karathia, learned advocate for respondent no.2- complainant, have strongly objected to grant the bail and have submitted that in the FIR as well as papers of the investigation, involvement of present appellant is clearly established and the role was attributed by him in the offence. From the papers of the investigation, at present, his involvement is proved in the offence. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the present appeal may be dismisse