The court ruled that lack of evidence and inconsistencies in witness statements justified granting bail to the appellants despite serious charges.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offences under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sriganganagar whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellants was rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that co- accused persons namely Vijaypal (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14607/2024) & Kuldeep Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14608/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2024.

3. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of appellants is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants have not been named in the FIR. As per the FIR, the blunt weapon (danda) recovered at the instance of the present appellants do not contain any blood stains.

4. Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the order dated 02.12.2024 passed by this Court.

6. The order dated 02.12.2024 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

“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.168/2024, registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh, for the offence under Sections 302, 365, 382, 504, 447, 427, 323, 341, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ ST Act.

2. As per the prosecution, on 06.06.2024, the complainant- Rawtaram presented a written report before the SHO of Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh alleging inter alia that on 06.06.2024 at around 09:00- 10:00 A.M., the co-accused persons namely Aduram, Omprakash, Tarachand, Narayan, Suresh Kumar, Kishnaram, Lalchand and Tejpal, in unison, reached Kaluram’s field in a camper vehicle being laced with lathis and gandasi in their hands and started beating Kaluram and his nephew- Narendra. In the aforesaid incident, Narendra’s right elbow and both legs were grievously injured. The accused persons also damaged two tractors parked in Kaluram’s field and took away Kaluram’s and Narendra’s smart phones with them. After kidnapping Kaluram from his farm, the co-accused Omprakash took him to his field and inflicted several injuries to him. When the complainant reached Omprakash’s farm to rescue Kaluram, the co-accused Omprakash also beat him up due to which the complainant also received several injuries. The complainant immediately called the police, and when the police arrived at Omprakash’s farm, they rescued Kaluram and the complainant. During the course of treatment Kaluram succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of the said report, an FIR came to be registered at Police Station Rawla, District Anoopgarh against the accused persons.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as the petitioners have not been named in the FIR. There is nothing on record of the case to indicate that the petitioners had any motive to commit the alleged crime. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the complainant- Rawtaram, Surendra Singh, Girdhari Singh, and Ranjeet Singh recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., learned counsel submitted that these eye- witnesses have even not named t