Abaandoning charges under IPC while allowing bail due to insufficient evidence directly linking appellant to the crime.

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the order of rejection of regular bail by learned Special Judge, Aurangabad in connection with Crime No. 195/2022 registered with CIDCO Police Station, Dist. Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 302 , 143, 147, 148, 149, 120(B), 201, 114 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. First informant is the mother of deceased Manoj. She reported the incident dated 20th April, 2022. According to her, while she was at home with Manoj, one Satish Khare and fve to six persons came along with him and took Manoj under the pretext of tent work (Mandap). Later on she received a video indicating Manoj being assaulted after his hands and legs were tied. She came to Aurangabad and went to the house of Satish Khare at Siddharth Nagar, Aurangabad. No one was found there. They went to Mehawale Function Hall at N-12, Hudco, Aurangabad. The said place was locked. Informant went to police station wherein she got knowledge about Manoj being admitted in Ghati Hospital in unconscious state for the purpose of treatment where he was declared dead. It is alleged that Satish Khare and others assaulted Manoj to death.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that though name of the present appellant is referred in the First Information Report however, there is no allegation against him that he caused assault on the deceased. It is his submission that even otherwise, charge-sheet does not show that for the purpose of killing he was brought by even co-accused. It is submitted that the allegation against the present appellant is that he gave bath to the deceased after he was assaulted and his clothes were changed. According to him, offence against the present appellant cannot travel beyond Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code . It is submitted that since the involvement of the appellant is not found in the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code , he is entitled for bail as he is behind the bar for more than one year.

4. Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the appeal on the ground that the offence committed is serious in nature. It is submitted that the co-accused along with present appellant took the deceased from is house on the pretext of work and thereafter he was beaten to death. It is submitted that the manner in which the deceased was assaulted clearly shows brutality of crime. Learned counsel for informant submits that since Section 149 of Indian Penal Code is made applicable, present appellant is also responsible for the act of the co-accused. He drew attention of the court to the statement of eye-witness Shubham who has clearly spelt out the presence of appellant on the spot and the acts done by him. It is his submission that co-accused against whom similar role is alleged has been denied regular bail by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 398/2023. Thus, according to him, present appellant is not entitled for bail.

5. There is no doubt about the fact that deceased was beaten brutally to death by co-accused. However, the entire charge- sheet does not indicate involvement of the present appellant in the said assault. The sole witness to the incident also does not state any overtact being committed by the present appellant in the assault caused to the deceased. He specifcally states that after the deceased was assaulted, present appellant and one co-accused gave him bath and changed his clothes. From his statement, it is clear that the role of the present appellant cannot travel beyond Section 201 of Indian Penal Code .

6. As far as contention of learned counsel for the informant and learned APP about applicability of Section 1