ORDER : 1. The appellant preferred one Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2020 before the Court of learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara u/s. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence being registered vide I-C.R. No.15 of 2019 with Vadodara Railway Police Station, Vadodara for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short "the Atrocities Act") wherein, learned 14th Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara rejected the said application on 12.06.2020. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred present appeal u/s 14A of the Atrocities Act. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant, learned advocate for the respondent no.2 and learned APP for the respondent-State. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that even after the stage of conclusion of the investigation and by going through entire charge-sheet papers, the prosecution has failed, whereby there is a complete absence of any concrete evidence in support of the allegations levelled in the FIR especially with regard to Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Atrocities Act and even by relying upon entire charge-sheet, the provisions as alleged against the appellant is not attracted and the appellant has not acted in any such manner, which would attract the penal provisions as alleged. He further submits that the complainant was highly unreliable right from the inception of the prosecution, raising serious doubts with regards to the creditability of his changing versions, today, as stated hereinabove, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, also this Court may exercise discretion in favour of the present appellant. He further submits that co-accused person had also approached this Court and this Court has released the said accused on regular bail. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara and release the appellant on bail. 5. Hence, it was requested by learned advocate for the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara and release the appellant on bail. 5. Learned APP for the respondent-State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant and submitted that as per the order passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1714 of 2019 on 3rd October 2019, appeal preferred by the present appellant was withdrawn and learned Judge was directed to give priority and dispose of Sessions Case on merits. She further submits that as per the direction issued by this Court, prosecution has started examination of the witnesses and tried to comply with the order to complete the trial within a period of six months. That, at present, 15 prosecution witnesses are examined by the prosecution. That, the appellant is head strong person, however, he is an employee of the railway department and he is involved in three serious offences under the Indian Penal Code. That there is no change of circumstances to release the present appellant on bail. That, during the course of investigation, statement of the first informant was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That, other witnesses i.e. medical officer and police officers are yet to be examined by the prosecution before the learned Sessions Court. At present, no discretion may be exercised by accepting the prayer to enlarge the appellant on bail and therefore, it was requested by learned APP for the respondent no.2 to dismiss present appeal. 6. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has submitted that respondent no.2 has no objection if the prayer made by present appellant to release him on bail may be allowed by this Court. It is further submitted that in the affidavit filed by the first informant, it is clearly stated that the first informant has no objection if the present appellant is enlarged on bail. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has further submitted that the respondent no.2 himself is present in his chamber and supported the arguments advance by learned advocate for the appellant for enlarging the present appellant on bail. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent no.2 has further submitted that the respondent no.2 himself is present in his chamber and supported the arguments advance by learned advocate for the appellant for enlarging the present appellant on bail. 7. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocates for the respective parties as well as learned APP for the respondent-State, it appears that earlier bail application filed by present appellant was withdrawn vide order dated 03.10.2019 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No.1714 of 2019 and liberty was granted to approach this Court, if the trial is not concluded within a period of six months. Undisputedly, Sessions Case is pending against the present appellant and out of 65 prosecution witnesses, 15 witnesses are examined by prosecution. It appears from the investigation papers that initially, name of the present appellant was not disclosed in the complaint by the complainant. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, name of the present appellant was disclosed. The co-accused has already been released on bail by this Court (Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Umesh A. Trivedi) in Criminal Appeal No.1508 of 2019 on 19.08.2019. On 02.03.2019, statement of the first informant under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded, wherein he claimed to be eye witness of the incident and name of the present appellant was disclosed. 8. It appears that the first informant was examined vide Exh.8 in Sessions Case No.39 of 2019, wherein in the examination-in-chief, he has not supported the prosecution case. Even in Para-7 of his deposition, he has denied about recording his statement before the Court below. He was turned hostile by the prosecution, and thereafter, during the cross examination of the prosecution, he has not supported the prosecution case. The trial is pending and it will take some reasonable time for final conclusion. Except the evidence of first informant, there are no other eye witnesses from the prosecution side. There would be no purpose to keep the present appellant behind the bar for more time as he is in judicial custody since March-2019. 9. As per arguments advanced by leaned APP for the respondent-State that present appellant is involved in serious offences as argued before the Court below while rejecting his bail in Criminal Misc. Application No.922 of 2020, it appears that three offences were registered against the present appellant. 9. As per arguments advanced by leaned APP for the respondent-State that present appellant is involved in serious offences as argued before the Court below while rejecting his bail in Criminal Misc. Application No.922 of 2020, it appears that three offences were registered against the present appellant. Out of these three offences, first offence has been registered against the present appellant being C.R. No.II/247/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294(KH),506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.09.2018 and second offence has been registered against the present appellant being C.R. No.I-139 of 2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 143, 147 and 294 on 02.09.2015 wherein he was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Fourth Court, Vadodara on 09.05.2016 in Criminal Case No.3002 of 2016 and third offence was registered against the present appellant being C.R.No.III-580 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 65(a)(e) and 116-B of the Prohibition Act on 02.09.2018. No offence of murder has been registered against the present appellant as argued before learned Sessions Court. 10. Considering the fact that the respondent No.2 has no objection and he has filed his affidavit before this Court as well as he has not supported the prosecution case in Sessions Case No.39 of 2019, this Court is of the view that considering the change of circumstances, prayer made by the appellant requires to be allowed. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to exercise the discretion in favour of present appellant by enlarging him on regular bail and hence, the prayer sought for by the present appellant requires consideration. Hence, this Court is of the view that present appeal deserves consideration 12. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2020 passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. In the result, present Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 12.06.2020 passed by learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Atrocity Cases at Vadodara in Criminal Misc. Application No. 922 of 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to the conditions that appellant shall; [a] not take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty; [b] not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution; [c] surrender passport, if any, to the lower court within a week; [d] not leave India without prior permission of the concerned Trial Court; [e] furnish the present address of residence to the Investigating Officer and also to the Court at the time of execution of the bond and shall not change the residence without prior permission of this Court; 13. The authorities will release the appellant only if he is not required in connection with any other offence for the time being. If breach of any of the above conditions is committed, the Sessions Judge concerned will be free to issue warrant or take appropriate action in the matter. Bail bond to be executed before the lower Court having jurisdiction to try the case. It will be open for the concerned Court to delete, modify and/or relax any of the above conditions, in accordance with law. 14. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order. Notice is discharged. 15. Registry shall forward a copy of this order to the concerned Jail Authority through fax or e-mail forthwith.