Order : (FARJAND ALI, J.) 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.86/2022, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra for the offences under Sections 342, 382/34, 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Balotra in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.447/2024, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be granted to the appellant. 3. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel Shri Balaram Kumawat puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.2. He was given full opportunity of hearing. He does not refute the fact that two kids are confined to jail with the appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. The appellant in this case has been arrested on 21.09.2022. She has two children; the elder is eight years of age and the younger is four years of age. She had been left by her husband therefore, both the kids are living with her in the prison. The two kids who are behind the bars since last two years and seven months have been deprived of their fundamental rights, particularly, education, health, nutrition, etc. and for no fault of them because they have not been insinuated. They cannot be separated from their mother owing to the reason that there is nobody to take care of them. Leaving them outside the prison would mean leaving them in vagrancy, starvation, and destitution. As a matter of fact, there are 41 witnesses projected by the prosecution, out of which till date, nine could have been examined, among which four have turned hostile and have not supported the story set out in the charge-sheet. Leaving them outside the prison would mean leaving them in vagrancy, starvation, and destitution. As a matter of fact, there are 41 witnesses projected by the prosecution, out of which till date, nine could have been examined, among which four have turned hostile and have not supported the story set out in the charge-sheet. Looking to the pace of the trial, it can easily be speculated that a further long time would spend in reaching on a legitimate conclusion of the trial as such the right to have a speedy trial has also been infringed. 7. Now, moving on to the merits of the case, here is the case having no eye-witness account of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon certain circumstances put forth by the prosecution based on the material collected during investigation. One lathi alleged to be recovered at the instance of her which was sent for serological and chemical examination to the FSL and it is stated that a report is received with the comment of being inconclusive. There is other bits of circumstances causing doubt upon the petitioner and her involvement in commission of the crime, however, this Court is of the opinion that grave the offence greater has to be the standard of proof and the suspicion, however, it may grave cannot take the place of proof and the same cannot be a substitute for a legal evidence. A perusal of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far in the trial does not reveal any concrete material showing the culpability of the petitioner. The circumstances are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature as it is prima facie evaluated. 8. Be that as it may, any comment on the merits of the case may put a serious dent on the case of the prosecution, therefore desisting from doing so but taking into account that two kids are languishing in jail without their fault and further the fact that two years and seven months have expired but the trial has not reached on to a legitimate conclusion, I feel that a concession of bail should be granted in her favour. Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. makes a special provision for the grant of bail to a woman, a boy below the age of 16 years, and weaker sections of society or infirm persons. 9. Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. makes a special provision for the grant of bail to a woman, a boy below the age of 16 years, and weaker sections of society or infirm persons. 9. It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petitioner is an indigent person having no source of income and does not have any relative to come forward to furnish surety for her. Ms. Kushi Sharma, learned counsel, strenuously urged that she had been informed about the financial status and social background of the petitioner and she would not be able to furnish surety for her release. 10. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant, named in the cause title, arrested in connection with aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case. Considering the financial constraints and her social background and particularly, the fact that two kids are incarcerated along with her, it is deemed appropriate to direct the petitioner to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- only without surety; to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.