Order

14/02/2025

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.225/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Banswara, District Banswara, for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2) & 105 of BNS; Section 3(1)(c)(i) & 3(2)(vd) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Banswara whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected.

2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and challan papers, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on

29.09.2024 at about 08:00 PM a sudden fight errupted between the appellant and the deceased- Sunil and his friends and the deceased- Sunil and his friends had started beating the appellant with iron rod s. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant in self defence hit the deceased with an iron rod, the deceased- Sunil succumbed to the head injury while undergoing treatment at Jeevan Jyoti Hospital, Udaipur.

3. Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, there is no evidence of motive for the appellant to commit the alleged crime and the entire incident occurred on the spur of the moment. Learned counsel submitted that for the alleged incident which occurred on 29.09.2024, a cross FIR has also been lodged against the complainant party, wherein, the investigation against the accused persons is still going on. Learned counsel further submitted that eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Raju (PW-1), Nanu (PW-2) and Vikas (PW-3) have though in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleged that on the date of incident, the appellant had inflicted the head injury upon the deceased- Sunil but all the eye witnesses during their Court statements had stated that on the date of alleged incident the appellant along with Tahir and Raja Babu had inflicted injury upon the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Raju (PW-1), Nanu (PW-2) and Vikas (PW-3) during their Court statements have not levelled any specific allegation of appellant inflicting injury upon the deceased with iron rod. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-appellant.

4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case as available on record in entirety and upon a careful consideration of the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court prima facie finds that there is a version and a cross version of the alleged incident which occurred on 29.09.2024 and in the cross FIR lodged against the complainant party, investigation against the accused persons is still going on; the challan papers submitted by the investigating agency in the present case prima facie indicate that the appellant inflicted the head injury upon the deceased in self defence; the eye witnesses of the alleged incident namely Raju (PW-1), Nanu (PW-2) and Vikas (PW-3) during their Court statements have not levelled any specific allegation of upon only the appellant of inflicting injuries upon the deceased with iron rod.

7. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that the order rejecting the application for bail filed on behalf of the appellant, cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside particularly for the reason that there is nothing on record which indicates that the appellant had committe