JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. In all these three appeals under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989') accused-appellants have assailed impugned orders passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Merta (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting their bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 2. Appellants were apprehended pursuant to investigation into common FIR No. 173/2016 registered at Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur, which after investigation culminated into Sessions Case No. 80/2016 pending before learned trial Court, therefore, all are heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. Initially, in the FIR, accused Ghanshyam and appellant Dhirendra Singh with four-five others were named for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 365, 302, 120-B IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 but during investigation names of appellants Mahipal alias Chintu and Chetan Singh surfaced and therefore against four accused persons namely Ghanshyam Sharma, Mahipal @ Chintu, Chandra Singh alias Lalit Rathore and Chetan Singh charge-sheet for the aforesaid offences was filed while keeping investigation pending against appellant Direndra Singh. Later on, charge-sheet against Dhirendra Singh was also filed. Appellant Mahipal alias Chintu applied for bail before learned trial Court but his prayer was declined by order dated 24th of March 2017. Endeavour was also made by appellant Chetan Singh for seeking bail before the learned trial Court but his effort proved abortive and the bail application was rejected vide order dated 25th of October 2016. Likewise, appellant Dhirendra Singh later on moved an application for seeking bail before learned trial Court and the learned trial Court by its order dated 23rd of June 2017 nixed his bail application. 4. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kharlia has vehemently argued that appellant Dhirendra Singh though named in FIR but has been falsely implicated in the matter. Mr. Kharlia would contend that there was a perfect alibi of the appellant inasmuch as on the date of incident he was at Mandsore (M.P.) as is unfurled during investigation from the CCTV footage of Mandsore SBI ATM besides call details. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that there was no enmity between appellant and deceased Prabhu Ram or his family members and the dispute as such was between Co-accused Ghanshyam and deceased Prabhu Ram. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that there was no enmity between appellant and deceased Prabhu Ram or his family members and the dispute as such was between Co-accused Ghanshyam and deceased Prabhu Ram. He, therefore, urged that motive to commit offence is conspicuously missing in the matter. Mr. Kharlia has argued that there is no recovery from the appellant and requisite evidence for conspiracy is also conspicuously missing. With all these submissions, learned counsel has craved for upsetting the impugned order and releasing the appellant on bail. 5. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for appellant Mahipal alias Chintu, while assailing the impugned order, has submitted that in the original FIR appellant's name did not find mention and it is only during investigation on the basis of wholly unreliable evidence, he is sought to be implicated in the matter. Mr. Jain would contend that during investigation, the complainant, Ms. Chuku Devi, and two sons of deceased Prabhu Ram viz., Goga Ram and Manish, have not whispered anything against appellant in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 Learned counsel Mr. Jain has argued that it is only witness Vikram Singh who has introduced and castigated the appellant for commission of offence but a close scrutiny of his statement clearly and unequivocally reveals that these statements made are not inspiring confidence. Elaborating his submission in this behalf, Mr. Jain has referred to the police statement of Amar Singh (father of Vikram Singh) and urged that per se Amar Singh's version is not corroborating with statement of Vikram Singh. Learned counsel has strenuously urged that if the statements of Vikram Singh and Amar Singh are examined in the light of facts narrated in FIR, then it would ipso facto reveal that their statements are not in consonance and conformity with the contents of the FIR. Learned counsel has also argued that during test identification parade both the sons of deceased have not identified appellant but only Chuki Devi, wife of deceased, further puts the entire prosecution story under serious cloud. Mr. Vineet Jain, while assailing the incriminating evidence of recovery of iron rod, has submitted that the recovery was made almost after more than a month from the date of incident and the iron rod was also not found to be blood-stained. Mr. Vineet Jain, while assailing the incriminating evidence of recovery of iron rod, has submitted that the recovery was made almost after more than a month from the date of incident and the iron rod was also not found to be blood-stained. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that in that background impugned order is not sustainable and appellant's bail plea merits favourable consideration. 6. Mr. R.S. Chouhan, learned counsel for Chetan Singh, has reiterated the submissions made by Mr. Vineet Jain. It is argued by learned counsel Mr. Chouhan that appellant Chetan Singh was neither named in the FIR nor identified by son of deceased Goga Ram. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no recovery of weapon of offence from appellant and prima facie there is no material on record to show his motive to commit the offence. Lastly, learned counsel has urged that requisite evidence for conspiracy is also conspicuously missing in the matter which has sufficiently tilted balance in his favour for upsetting the impugned order and releasing him on bail. 7. Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj, learned Public Prosecutor, has vehemently opposed all these three appeals. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that, looking to the gravity and magnitude of the offence with which the appellants are charged, no interference with the impugned orders is warranted. Learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the learned trial Court, while considering bail applications of the appellants, has declined bails to them in exercise of its discretion, therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Court are not liable to be interfered with in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that while it is true that case of Dhirendra Singh is not on par with other appellants but then during investigation certain call details are collected to show his involvement in commission of offence. Learned Public Prosecutor has also argued that, upon disclosure of appellant Mahipal, iron rod was recovered, which was allegedly used in commission of offence, and therefore, his appeal merits rejection. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed heavy reliance on the evidence collected during investigation, more particularly, requisite inculpatory evidence against the appellants so as to establish their direct nexus with the commission of offence and urged to non-suite all the appeals. While relying on the said incriminating material, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that all these appeals are liable to be nixed. 8. While relying on the said incriminating material, learned Public Prosecutor has strenuously urged that all these appeals are liable to be nixed. 8. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, learned Public Prosecutor and scanned the materials available on record including the impugned orders. 9. Upon a close scrutiny of the material available on record, it has come to the fore that even investigating agency has collected requisite material to show absence of appellant Dhirendra Singh at the time of commission of offence. The so called evidence of call details, allegedly collected by the investigating agency to establish his nexus with the commission of offence is, prima facie, not of sterling worth in absence of semblance of proof about conspiracy and motive of the individual to commit offence. Undeniably, as per prosecution case, subsistence of land dispute was between Ghanshyam Sharma and deceased Prabhu Ram. That apart, the evidence which was collected during investigation against appellant Mahipal and Chetan Singh, is full of inconsistencies and not inspiring confidence. As a matter of fact, the version of first informant Ms. Chuki Devi, Goga Ram and Manish in their police statements is a glaring example of false implication inasmuch as they have directly involved Dhirendra Singh in commission of offence whereas the same has not unearthed even during investigation. A cumulative reading of the statements of these witnesses further reveals that they have not named appellant Mahipal and Chetan Singh in commission of offence. If the impugned orders are examined in that background, then, in my considered opinion, the learned trial Court has not addressed on all these aspects. 10. While it is true that at the stage of consideration of bail applications, minute scrutiny of evidence is not required but Court can very well examine prima facie evidence against an individual because liberty is a sacrosanct fundamental right of a citizen. Keeping an individual under incarceration on wholly unreliable evidence is not in consonance and conformity with the basic law governing the province of bails and criminal jurisprudence. In these circumstances, sans dilating on merits of the case, impugned orders cannot be sustained on the touchstone of basic tenets of law governing the province of bails. 11. Keeping an individual under incarceration on wholly unreliable evidence is not in consonance and conformity with the basic law governing the province of bails and criminal jurisprudence. In these circumstances, sans dilating on merits of the case, impugned orders cannot be sustained on the touchstone of basic tenets of law governing the province of bails. 11. The upshot of above discussion is that all these appeals are allowed, impugned orders dated 28.06.2017, 24.03.2017 and 25.10.2016, passed by learned trial Court are set aside and it is ordered that accused-appellants (1) Dhirendra Singh S/o Sh. Hosiyar Singh, (2) Mahipal @ Chintu S/o Sh. Bhawani Singh, and (3) Chetan Singh S/o Sh. Tej Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 173/2016 of Police Station Makrana, District Nagaur, may be released on bail; provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.