Prolonged judicial custody and the granting of bail to similarly accused necessitate balancing judicial interests, ensuring fair trial rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

The appellant - accused No.2 is before this Court seeking grant of bail under Section 14-(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) in Crime No.257/2021 of Avalahally Police Station, Bengaluru, pending before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 149, 148, 147, 143, 120-B and 341 of IPC, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(r)(s)

of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment ordinance Act, 2014, on the basis of the first information lodged by informant-Roopa. V.

2. Heard Sri Aruna Shyam M., learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Ajeeth, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State and Sri. B.S.Prasada, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant submitted that the appellant is arrayed as accused No.2. He was apprehended on 29.09.2021 and since then, he is in judicial custody. Initially, FIR came to be registered against five persons. However, while filing the charge sheet, the names of all those five persons were dropped and it was filed against accused Nos. 1 to 8, who were never named in the first information.

4. It is contended that CW-4 is the sole eye-witness to the incident. His statement was recorded on 29.09.2021. Even though the incident had occurred on 25.09.2021. CW-4 in his statement makes it very clear that none of the assailants were known to him, rather they are all strangers. Inspite of that, no test identification parade was conducted. He further submits that even though CW-3 is cited as eye-witness, his statement and further statement discloses that he was never the eye-witness to the incident. He came to the spot after the incident and came to know about the same from the persons who were present at the spot.

5. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant further submits that the co-accused were granted bail by this Court on the ground of delay in holding trial. Even though the charge sheet was filed long back and the charge came to be framed, still the matter is at the stage of fixing the date for trial. There are as many as 50 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. Their examination will take sufficiently longer period. The appellant is not having any criminal antecedents. Therefore, he prays to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1 opposing the appeal submitted that this appellant is the main accused along with accused No.1, who inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased by assaulting with a long. The blood stained clothes were recovered at the instance of the appellant. The CCTV footage from the bar, situated near the scene of occurrence was recovered. As such the identification of the assailants was made easy. Therefore, no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer. The recovery mahazar pertaining to CCTV footage and the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer forms part of the charge sheet. Accused No.1, who is the main accused, is still in custody along with the present appellant. Considering the nature and seriousness of the offence, the appellant is not entitled for grant of bail. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the app