ORDER : 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.66/2023, Police Station Gangrar, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.20/2025, whereby the application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial Court. 2. Despite intimation to the victim/complainant of the case regarding hearing of the bail plea, no one is present on his behalf. 3. 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. 4. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. I have gone through the niceties of the case. The first bail application of the appellant was dismissed by this Court while giving him liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statements of the Investigating Officer is recorded in the trial, who has now been examined. As a matter of fact, the eye-witness account of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution is wholly majorly and purely rest upon some circumstances, for which it is contended that the same are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. The prosecution tried to rope the appellant with the help of evidence of recovery of a leather belt, however, the same is not found smeared with blood for there is no other material show in connectivity of the recovered belt with the alleged murder. There is no evidence against the appellant regarding last scene together with the deceased. The prosecution tried to rope the appellant with the help of evidence of recovery of a leather belt, however, the same is not found smeared with blood for there is no other material show in connectivity of the recovered belt with the alleged murder. There is no evidence against the appellant regarding last scene together with the deceased. The assertion of the prosecution that location of the mobile phone of the appellant was found within the tower area of the place of incident does not inspire confidence since there may be several persons within the radiation of that particular tower at the relevant point of time and therefore, this cannot be taken as a concrete and conclusive piece of evidence of material evidence against the appellant. 7. Thus, it would not be justifiable to keep the appellant behind the bar looking to the fact that early culmination of the trial is not a seeming fate. In this background and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 8. 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, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each 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.