JUDGMENT 1. The present criminal appeals under Section 14-A (2) of the Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.389/2020 registered at Police Station Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rural), Rajasthan for the offence under Section(s) 279 & 304-A of IPC and later on for the offence under Section(s) 302, 201 & 120-B of IPC & under Section 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989'). 2. Learned counsel for the appellant Anita @ Annu contended that she has falsely been implicated in this case wherein neither in the FIR lodged on 22.08.2020 by Lokesh, nor in the written report dated 24.08.2020 submitted by him, any allegation has been levelled against her. He submitted that she has been arrested after the arrest of co-accused persons to deprive her from the estate of her deceased husband. With regard to mobile conversation with Maman Singh, learned counsel submitted that as Maman Singh was taking care of truck and other vehicles of the appellant, conversation in between them was not unusual. He further submitted that she has been implicated alleging her illicit relationship with the co-accused Maman Singh; but, the same is not believable in absence of statements of her two sons aged 12 years and 10 years respectively. He, therefore, prayed for her release of bail. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants Prahlad & Kamlesh submitted that an accidental death has been converted into murder for extraneous consideration by the prosecution. Drawing attention of this Court towards the mobile call detail, learned counsel submitted that it does not contain any conversation in between Maman Singh and Kamlesh. Learned counsel submitted that on the one hand the prosecution case is that all the accused persons were seen together at about 3-4 pm on 21.08.2020; whereas, they have relied upon the mobile call details to show their involvement, which is mutually destructive. He, therefore, prayed for release of the appellants on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposing the prayer submits that from the material collected during the course of investigation, it is apparent that Lalaram was murdered by the accused appellants in conspiracy with other co-accused as the appellant Anita @ Annu was having illicit relationship with accused Maman Singh. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 5. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 6. It is true that initially FIR dated 28.02.2021 was lodged by Lokesh claiming the death of Lalaram to be accidental; but, during the course of evidence, it is revealed that Lalaram was murdered by the accused appellants in conspiracy with the co-accused persons. Statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. such as Lokesh Meena, Ravindra Kumar, Ramotar Meena, Naresh Kumar Meena, Shailesh Kumar Meena and Vinod Kumar reveal that the accused appellant Anita @ Annu had illicit relationship with accused Maman Singh. Statements of prosecution witnesses such as Vinod Kumar, Manish Kumar and Satish Kumar reveal that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused appellants Prahlad and Kamlesh along with other co-accused persons. In so far as absence of mobile conversation with Kamlesh is concerned, the statements on record reveal that he was present along with other co-accused persons at the relevant time and hence, no conversation; but, the material on record reveals that Prahlad had gone out for some time under the pretext of fetching dinner and hence, the mobile call details contain conversation with him. 7. In view of the aforesaid and gravity of allegation against the appellants, they do not deserve indulgence of bail. 8. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.