JUDGMENT/ORDER : SANDEEP MEHTA, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 2. The instant second appeal (bail) has been filed under Section 14A(2) SC/ST (PA) Act on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 397/2015, P.S. Balotra, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 341, 323, 325, 307, 302/149 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act against the order dated 14.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Balotra whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 3. Learned counsel Shri Shah urges that co-accused Nand Ram, Bana Ram, Kesa Ram, Dashrath and Dharma Ram have been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the appellant is not distinguishable. He drew the Court's attention to the statement of injured eye-witness Bhawani Singh, who was examined as P.W.5 at the trial and urges that the witness did not name the appellant as an assailant in his evidence. He also drew the Court's attention to the statement of star prosecution witness Praveen Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on whose motorcycle, the deceased was travelling and urges that the witness did not specifically name the appellant in the body of attackers, who assaulted the deceased Pola Ram. He contends that Praveen Singh alleged that initially Ganga Ram and Heera Ram assaulted him and Pola Ram by lathis and thereafter, Dashrath, Jhunjha Ram, Jora Ram, Pokar Ram Jat, Ugra Ram, Narsingh, Nand Ram, Bhura Ram, and Kesa Ram surrounded them and beat up them. The specific allegation of causing axe blows to Pola Ram was levelled against Pokar Ram and Bhura Ram whereas the others were alleged to be armed with lathis. He urges that the appellant is not named in the group of individuals who allegedly assaulted the deceased and implored the Court to enlarge the appellant on bail. 4. Though learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Shri Shah but he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant is not named as an assailant in the statement of the injured eye-witness Bhawani Singh. 4. Though learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by Shri Shah but he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the appellant is not named as an assailant in the statement of the injured eye-witness Bhawani Singh. Further, the injured eye-witness Praveen Singh on whose motorcycle, the deceased was travelling, did not allege in his investigational statement that the appellant was a member of the group of individuals who assaulted the deceased. Some of the co-accused persons have been enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. In view of above and having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. Consequently, this second appeal (bail) is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.10.2017 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Cases, Balotra is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Hadmana Ram @ Hanuman Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 397/2015, P.S. Balotra, District Barmer shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.