ORDER
This appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is preferred against the order dated 13.08.2026 passed in B.A. No. 09/2026 by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Ujjain. By the impugned order, the trial court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking bail in connection with Crime No. 86/2026 registered at Police Station Makdon, District Ujjain, for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(3), 115(2), and 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va), and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. It is argued that the appellant's name
1
does not figure in the First Information Report (FIR), nor does he appear anywhere in the CCTV footage. The investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed. The conclusion of trial will likely to take long time, hence prayed for release of the appellant on bail during trial. Counsel for the State opposes the bail, pointing out that the memorandum statement of co-accused Shankar, as well as the appellant's own disclosure statement, record that the appellant was carrying a knife. The State further highlights that Shankar's memorandum states the appellant was handed over the knife after the incident to hide it.
In response, counsel for the appellant drew the Court's attention to the statement of the witness, Makhan, recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS (formerly Section 161 of the CrPC). A plain reading of this statement reveals that the witness attributed the use of a lathi (wooden stick) to inflict injuries on Rohit, rather than a knife.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the case diary, this Court is of the view that the evidentiary value of the disclosure statements is a matter of trial. Prima facie, for the purpose of deciding this bail application, a memorandum recorded under Section 23 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 27 of the Evidence Act) cannot be heavily relied upon at this stage. Since the investigation is complete, the charge-sheet has been filed, and the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time, the continuous custody of the appellant is unwarranted, especially considering the fact that he has no criminal antecedents.
2
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI)
JUDGE
Consequently, without commenting on the merits of the case, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before that Court, as and when directed, during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 480 (3) of the BNSS, 2023. hk/
3