JUDGMENT 1. - Heard at length. 2. It is alleged that the co-accused Kishore Singh cut the penis of Jugta Ram at the police station Barmer after keeping him in illegal custody for three days or so. The act is barbaric and there is no doubt in it, but Kishore Singh is not before me. 3. As per the prosecution story the victim Jugta Ram had developed illicit relations with the wife and daughter of the petitioner Bheron Singh and on his asking Kishore Singh, who is said to be his near relative, cut off his penis with a razor. Petitioner Bheron Singh has been arrested on the charge of 120-B IPC. So far petitioner Sumerdan is concerned, accusation against him is that he caught hold the victim while the co-accused Kishore Singh had cut the penis. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel that two sets of evidence have been collected by the prosecution and some of the witnesses, on whom the prosecution has also relied and in challan papers their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. have been submitted in the Court and cited as prosecution witnesses, have stated that none of the petitioners was present at the time of the incident. It is also contended that the brother of the victim had made a complaint to the Collector, but he did not make any complaint against the petitioners. The learned counsel also read over some statements of the witnesses to show that none of the petitioners was present at the police station when the incident took place. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for CBI, with equal vehemence opposed to grant of bail. He states that there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Jugta Ram victim and even some of the witnesses have shown the absence of the petitioners, there is no reason to disbelieve his (Jugta Ram) statement. It is also contended that petitioner No. 2, in case released on bail, shall tamper with the prosecution witnesses, as he is Assistant Sub Inspector and some of the prosecution witnesses are police constables. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. It shall not be proper for me to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties. 6. I have considered the rival contentions. It shall not be proper for me to express any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, as it may prejudice the case of either of the parties. The main charge against the Principal accused is under section 326 or 308 IPC and the petitioner Bheron Singh has been arrested under section 120-B IPC while petitioner Sumerdan has been arrested with the aid of Section 34 IPC. Having gone through the entire statements recorded by the CBI and taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. on certain conditions. 7. It is, therefore, directed that the accused-petitioners Bheron Singh s/o Hamcer Singh and Sumerdan s/o Alsidan shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court or any other Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial in the case. The bail shall be subject to the following conditions: (i) that none of the petitioners shall directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any persons acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade such facts to the Court; (ii) that petitioner Sumerdan shall not go to the Barmer town and the police station Barmer till the conclusion of the trial, except on specific permission to be accorded by the trial Court. He is said to be under suspension and as such, the concerned authority may pass an appropriate order to direct him to report at Police-Headquarters Jaipur, so that, it may not be necessary for him to report at police station Barmer. 8. It is necessary to see that the trial is held fairly and the evidence is not tampered with as such, if any complaint is made by the prosecuting agency to the trial Court for violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, it shall be open to the said Court to cancel the bail of the petitioners or any one of them on being satisfied on the allegations without making any reference to this Court. 9. 9. Before parting with, I would like to express that I have been informed that only Rs. 10,000/- as ex-gratia compensation has been provided to the victim Jugta Ram, which prima-facie appears to be inadequate. Jugta Ram may write to the Secretary, State Legal Ail Board, Jaipur to file a petition on his behalf before this Court for providing appropriate compensation and if such application is received by the Secretary, State Legal Aid Board steps shall be taken by him and free legal aid shall be provided to him. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court as well as the Secretary, State Legal Aid Board, Jaipur. *******