The court emphasized the necessity of eyewitness testimony for serious charges and granted bail based on insufficient evidence.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

3 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant for setting aside the order dated 25.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 120 ( B ) and 34 of IPC and Section 3 (i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant has been rejected.

3. As per prosecution case, informant alleged that on

19.10.2021, grandson of the informant went outside the house to visit fair and thereafter, went missing. On 15.10.2021, informant got to know that one dead body was lying near the railway track in an abandoned position. Upon reaching, he saw the dead body of his grandson lying on the track. Informant suspects that all the accused persons named in the F.I.R. including these appellants killed the grandson of the informant as they had earlier threatened the deceased.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from bare persual of F.I.R., it is apparent that informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Only suspicion has been raised against this appellant because earlier it is alleged that this appellant along with other co-accused persons, threatened the grandson of informant. During investigation, none of the witnesses claimed to have seen this appellant committing the alleged occurrence. There is no allegation of abuse by caste name, hence, no offence of SC/ST is made out. Similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Appellant is in custody since

08.09.2025.

5. Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 oppose the bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts, period of custody and circumstances of the case, let the appellant, as named above be released on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court SC / ST, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Town ( Motihari )

P.S. Case No. 628 of 2021.

7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25.09.2025 is set aside and this criminal appeal is allowed on the following conditions:

“(1) Appellant shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present, as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail-bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.”

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)