IMPORTANT POINT
Bail is a fundamental right at the pre-conviction stage, and the burden lies on the prosecution to provide compelling reasons for denial, particularly when witness credibility is in question.

ORDER :

(Farjand Ali, J.) :

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below :

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

5. The bail application of co-accused Ravi Prakash has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15689/2024. After taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after due deliberation, the relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereunder:-

5. A perusal of the FIR is revealing that the case starts with lodging of an FIR bearing No. 0004 dated 15.06.2023 based upon a written report submitted by one Dalip Manda to the SHO, Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner with the averments that in the late night of 14.06.2023, the informant Suresh S/o Phusa Ram informed him that some accused persons including the petitioner made an assault over one Navrang; he was brutally clobbered up and then the accused fled away from the spot. In a state where the victim Navrang was fully soaked in a pool of blood, he was evacuated to PBM hospital where he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. The cause and motive for the incident has been stated to be previous animosity.

6. The investigation commenced and it was revealed during investigation that the information provider Suresh Bishnoi was not the witness of the incident rather he reached at the spot after the incident. The above fact was narrated by witnesses Ramswaroop, Ugrasen and Santosh Devi. This is an admitted case of the prosecution that neither Dalip Manda nor the informer Suresh Bishnoi S/o Phusa Ram Bishnoi had witnessed the incident. After around one month and nine days of the incident, two close relatives of the deceased namely Ugrasen and Ramswaroop have been made witnesses to narrate the eye-witness account of the incident. A plain reading of the statements of Ugrasen and Ramswaroop which were both recorded on 24.07.2023 suggests a stereotypical recital. The above fact can be fortified with the last line of the statement of witness Ramswaroop recorded on 24.07.2023 wherein it is written that my husband’s mobile number is 9950509029, however, neither Ramswaroop is the wife of the deceased nor is he a female. The same stereotypical recital can be traced while going through the statements of Smt. Santosh Devi, Ugrasen and others. The plea of defence that both the above-mentioned witnesses Ugrasen and Ramswaroop were not the witnesses of the incident rather they are tailor-made witnesses of the incident cannot be ignored at this juncture of hearing a bail plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Another plea of defence can also be taken into consideration for the justifiable disposal of the bail plea that only with a view to ensure false con