JUDGMENT:

These criminal appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act’) have been filed on behalf of the appellants being aggrieved with the orders dated 5.10.2021 and 1.7.2020 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta, District Nagaur (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the trial court’) in Criminal Misc. Case No.168/2021 (Sessions Case No.68/2015 (133/2015) and Criminal Misc. Bail Case No.61/2020 respectively, whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail applications filed on behalf of the appellants.

2. The appellants have been arrested in FIR/CR No.168/2015 of Police Station Merta City, Distt. Nagaur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 436, 447, 323, 324, 325, 326, 354, 147, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that as per the prosecution story, as many as ten persons from the complainant’s side were present at the time of incident and some of them had also received injuries. Learned counsels for the appellants while inviting my attention towards the statements of prosecution witnesses namely Arjun Ram, Kishna Ram, Munna Ram, Khema Ram, Sonki, Jashoda, Shobha Devi, Shrawan Ram, Bhanwari and Bidami have argued that out of the aforesaid prosecution witnesses, Arjun Ram, Khema Ram, Sonki, Jashoda, Shobha Devi, Shrawan Ram, Bhanwari and Bidami have not named the appellants. It is also argued that the above-named witnesses have been examined by the trial court as PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8, PW-9 and PW-10 and they have not named the appellants in their court statements.

4. Learned counsels for the appellants have submitted that so far as appellant – Ramdev is concerned, prosecution witness Kishna Ram (PW-2) named him for the first time in his statements recorded by the CBI on 7.6.2015, however, in his court statements, he has not named appellant – Ramdev.

5. So far as appellant – Baldev Ram is concerned, it is argued by learned counsel that Kishna Ram (PW-2) has not named him in his police as well as CBI statements, but subsequently named him in his statements recorded by the CBI under Section 161 CrPC on 7.6.2015 without specifying his role. It is also argued that Kishna Ram (PW-2) though named appellant – Baldev Ram, but no role has been assigned to him. It is further argued that Munna Ram (PW-3), in his CBI statements recorded on 28.3.2016, has named appellant – Baldev Ram, but in his court statements, he has not named the said appellant. Learned counsel has also submitted that though some of the prosecution witnesses, in their police, CBI as well as court statements have named appellant – Baldev Ram, but no specific role has been assigned to him.

6. Learned counsel has also argued that statements of eye witnesses have been recorded before the trial court and, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the appellants can pressurize them or temper with the evidence of the eye witnesses.

7. Learned counsels for the appellants have also submitted that appellant – Ramdev is in custody from 16.5.2015, whereas appellant – Baldev Ram is in custody from 14.2.2017, however, the trial against them has not been concluded till date and, in such circumstances, they are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the CBI has vehemently opposed these criminal appeals and submitted that as a matter of fact, the incident took place in a large agricultural field wherein more than 100 people had attacked the complainant party and assaulted them at different places, in which, five persons have been brutally murdered. It is submitted that as the deceased and the injured persons were assaulted at different places in a large agricultural field, it would not be possible for the p