The court granted bail under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for conditions to prevent witness tampering and ensure a fair trial.

This is the first criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellant under Section 14-A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail against order dated 02.04.2024 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act), Seoni (MP) passed in SC ATR No. 26/2024, by which application for grant of bail was dismissed.

2 . Appellant has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 01/2024, registered at Police Station AJAK, District Seoni (M.P.) fo r the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 342, 386, 120-B, 347, 348, 365, 354-A, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(1) (w)(ii) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3 . It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for appellant that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is a delay of about 40 days in lodging of FIR. It is submitted that complainant was his employee and has committed theft in his shop. He was questioned by the appellant regarding theft, therefore, false report has been lodged against the appellant. Appellant is in jail since 24.02.2024. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. Offence is punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment. Considering aforesaid circumstances, prayer is made to release appellant on bail.

4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for State as well as counsel appearing for the objector opposed the appeal for grant of bail. It is submitted that appellant is politically influential person and he will not allow fair trial.

Witnesses may be threatened. In these circumstances, appellant may not be released on bail.

5. Counsel appearing for the objector has presented a pendrive before this Court to be seen in Court.

6 . Counsel appearing for the appellant objected to said pendrive and submitted that comliances of Section 65-B of Evidence Act is not made. It cannot be said that said pendrive is genuine or not. It is to be seen at the stage of trial whether pendrive is genuine.

7 . Considering the objection, pendrive is not played in Court and prosecution is at liberty to use the pendrive in course of trial, if conditions under Section 65 of Evidence Act is satisfied.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. Offence alleged is punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment. Appellant is in jail since 24.02.2024. Investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed. One of the co-accused in the case namely Vijay has been released on bail. It is submitted that during course of trial, one of the co-accused namely Vicky @ Saurabh died in jail.

10. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, criminal appeal filed by appellant is allowed on condition that appellant will not try to contact the complainant or witnesses of the case.

11. It is directed that on appellant's furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, he be released on bail.

12. The appellant shall abide by the following conditions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C. as under:- (a) that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter;

(b) that such person shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected of the commission of which he is suspected and;

(c) that such person shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

13. C.C. as per rules.