The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and that personal liberty should be balanced with the need to secure the accused's attendance at trial.

JUDGMENT

Anish Dayal, J.

1. By these petitions the petitioners, who are co-accused, seek regular bail in FIR No.665/2020 under sections 302/323/34 IPC registered at P.S. Ranhola. The petitioner was arrested on 30th June, 2020 and has been in custody since. Charge-sheet has been filed and the trial is progressing.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 27th June, 2020 information was received at PS Ranhola mentioning that "the finger of caller was bitten and bone of finger has been broken" and the same was marked to IO SI Amit Kumar. On inquiry, it was found that pursuant to an altercation, the parties had gone to the police station and the injured had gone to hospital for treatment. At the hospital, injured Jatinder Singh was found under treatment vide MLC 751/20, who later passed away. The case was registered initially under section 307 IPC since the doctor had opined the natures of injury as grievous. On 29th June, 2020, co-accused Amit Rawat was arrested by the IO. On the same day, information was received that Jatinder Singh had passed away. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted and blood from the clothes of the deceased was seized, cause of death was opined as 'cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head'. On 1st July, 2020, 3 other accused including the present petitioner was arrested. The weapon of offence i.e. wooden danda was recovered at the instance of accused Amit Rawat.

3. As per the statement of the mother of the deceased and witnesses, it was stated that accused Amit Rawat was beating the deceased with wooden danda while the other including the petitioner, were giving him fists and blows.

4. As per the status report, the petitioner is not involved in any other case except the present FIR and charge-sheet was filed and charges were framed on 7th April, 2022 by the Sessions Court. As per the prosecution, three prosecution witnesses have been examined including PW-1, the complaint (brother of the deceased), PW-2 (the mother of the deceased) and PW-3 and testimony of 16 other witnesses is yet to be recorded.

5. In support of the bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that firstly, the name of the petitioner does not find a mention in the FIR and it was merely stated by the complainant that when he had asked his brother, who was assaulted (the deceased victim) he had mentioned that his neighbor Amit Rawat and some accomplices had beaten him up. Secondly, as per the statement of complainant recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. on 28th June, 2020, he had stated that Amit Rawat and Jitender often used to get into arguments relating to getting water from the bore well which was installed in the field and had stated that he had "full faith" that on 27th June, 2020 when his brother Jitender was getting water from the bore well then Amit Rawat along with Praveen and Pradeep and some other accomplices had beaten him and ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this was statement of just belief and not of an eyewitness. Thirdly, as per the statement of Amit Rawat recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., his disclosure, it was recorded that he used to have conflict with Jatinder since he used to stare at his sister and had made their life hell and was looking for excuses to fight all the time. On that day upon seeing Jatinder, Jatinder exhorted him and joked him about marrying his sister and on being provoked, he started beating Jatinder with a stick and some other 'stray boys. from the colony came there and also joined him in beating Jatinder. As per the learned counsel for the petitioners, even Amit Rawat had not named the petitioners in his statement. Fourthly, after the deceased had passed away on 28th/29th June, 2020, the case was marked to IO Sahi Ram and for the first time the name of the petitioners cropped up in the supplementary disclosure statement of the accused Amit Rawat dated 30th June, 2020 wherein he had stated that he had not told t