ORDER :

1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.79/2022, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 365, 302, 120B and 212 IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that petitioners have not been named in the FIR. The specific allegation of beating the deceased - Narpat with lathis and sarias (iron rods) have been levelled against co-accused persons namely Raju Nethad, Ravindra Nethad, Dhannaram, Ramprasad Sangwa @ Rebel, Jagdish and Kaluram. It was fervently submitted that petitioner-Bhanwar Lal has been roped in the present case solely on the basis of the statements of one Dalip Singh @ Kanaram recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, who was allegedly present at the place of incident.

4. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased -Narpat was kidnapped and brutally assaulted/beaten by Raju Nethad, Ravindra Nethad, Dhannaram, Ramprasad Sangwa @ Rebel, Jagdish and Kaluram. The deceased was thereafter thrown outside Tarnau Hospital at about 10:30 PM. One Laxman Ram S/o Chennaram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that he had seen the above named co-accused persons and the present petitioner-Puneet throwing the deceased outside the Tarnau Hospital.

5. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that there are grave contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident which make the allegation of the involvement of the petitioners in the present case highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the statements of eyewitnesses Shrawan Ram (complainant), Dilip Singh and Laxman Ram are taken on their face value, then also, it would reveal that Shrawan Ram (complainant) who was present at the place of incident has not shown the presence of the petitioners at the place of incident. The eye witness Dilip Singh, in his statements, though has shown presence of the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal at the place of incident but does not mention the name of the petitioner-Puneet as one of the assailants. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-Puneet has been named for the first time by witness Laxman Ram. It was submitted that the petitioners did not participate in the murder of the deceased-Narpat. Apart from the statements of interested witnesses and eye witnesses of the case, there is no incriminating material available on record indicating complicity of the petitioners in the present case.

6. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused person namely Ramvilas Dhojak @ Kalu who was named in the FIR by the complainant has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15122/2023. Similarly, Dharmaram Ghosil who was named as an assailant by eye witness-Dilip Singh in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12638/2023. Learned counsel submitted that this Court should not deny parity to the petitioners with the other coaccused persons namely Ramesh Siyag, Raja Ram Mirdha, Ramkishore Garva, Narayan Singh and Priyanka @ Pinki who have already been released on bail vide order dated 06.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications Nos. 5140/2023, 6157/2023, 6162/2023, 10428/2023 and 11814/2023, respectively.

7. Learned cou