The right to bail is crucial and should not be denied without substantial justification; the absence of specific attribution in supplementary statements favors bail.

JUDGMENT

N.S.Shekhawat, J.

The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), against the impugned order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, whereby the application for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C was ordered to be dismissed, in a case arising out of FIR No.1135 dated 14.12.2021 under Sections 302,148,149,367,323,342,506 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) (v) of the "Act", Police Station Sadar, Hisar.

2. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the FIR was registered on the basis of the statement made by the complainant namely Sandeep son of Chiman Lal. In the FIR, he had levelled allegations against the Sandeep, Sunil, Golu, Deep, Sanjay, Vijay and 4/5 known persons, who had allegedly caused injuries to the complainant, Vinod and Bhal Singh. Later on, Vinod son of Om Parkash succumbed to the injuries.

3. Learned Senior counsel vehemently argued that in the present case, the complainant as well as the appellant belonged to Village Mirkan, District Hisar, still the appellant was not mentioned as one of accused in the FIR, Annexure A-1, by the complainant. However, on the next day, i.e.15.12.2021, the supplementary statement of the complainant (Annexure A-2) was recorded by the police and the appellant was named as one of the assailant in the present case. Apart from that, the police had also recorded the statement of Bhal Singh, injured on 15.12.2021 (Annexure A-3) and again the appellant was named as one of the assailant. Accordingly, on the strength of the two supplementary statements, the appellant was ordered to be arrested on 16.12.2021 and is in custody since then. Learned Senior counsel next contends that in the FIR, the complainant had named six persons and also stated that 4/5 unknown persons had participated in the occurrence. However, in the supplementary statement dated 15.12.2021 (Annexure A-2) the complainant had shown the involvement of 11 additional accused, enhancing the number of accused in the present case to 17 accused. He contends that the appellant herein was among the 11 persons, who were subsequently named by the complainant. However, again the version put forth by the complainant was found to be false and five other persons named by the complainant were declared innocent. He next contends that the complainant appeared before the Trial Court and an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved for summoning the five accused namely Surender son of Om Parkash Jaildar, Sunil son of Fateh Singh, Dinesh @ Mangu son of Asha Ram, Mandeep Kukna son of Bhadar Singh and Sumit @ Nanha Gadwal son of Subhash Gadwal, however, the said prayer was declined by the Trial Court vide order dated 05.06.2023(Annexure A-6). He further contends that the present appellant is also similarly placed with the said five accused, who were exonerated by the Investigating Agency and the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C for summoning those accused as additional accused, already stood dismissed. Learned senior counsel further contends that Ravinder @ Dholu, who is also similarly placed, as he was also named by the complainant in the supplementary statement (Annexure A-2), has already been granted the concession of bail by this Court in CRM-M-6621-2023 vide order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure A-7). Learned Senior counsel further contends that in the present case, the appellant is in custody for the last about 01 year and 11 months and even in the supplementary statement, on the basis of which the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, there is no specific attribution to him and his further continuation in custody would not serve any meaningful purpose.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned senior counsel for the appellant on t