ORDER : (Farjand Ali, J.) : 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below : S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 04/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar 3. District Bikaner 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 341 of IPC 5. Offences added, if any Under Section 212 & 120-B of IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order (In CRLMB No.) 20.03.2024 7. Date of passing of impugned order (In CRLMB No.) 20.11.2023 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The bail application of co-accused Ravi Prakash has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15689/2024. After taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and after due deliberation, the relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereunder:- 5. A perusal of the FIR is revealing that the case starts with lodging of an FIR bearing No. 0004 dated 15.06.2023 based upon a written report submitted by one Dalip Manda to the SHO, Police Station Mukta Prasad Nagar, Bikaner with the averments that in the late night of 14.06.2023, the informant Suresh S/o Phusa Ram informed him that some accused persons including the petitioner made an assault over one Navrang; he was brutally clobbered up and then the accused fled away from the spot. In a state where the victim Navrang was fully soaked in a pool of blood, he was evacuated to PBM hospital where he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. In a state where the victim Navrang was fully soaked in a pool of blood, he was evacuated to PBM hospital where he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. The cause and motive for the incident has been stated to be previous animosity. 6. The investigation commenced and it was revealed during investigation that the information provider Suresh Bishnoi was not the witness of the incident rather he reached at the spot after the incident. The above fact was narrated by witnesses Ramswaroop, Ugrasen and Santosh Devi. This is an admitted case of the prosecution that neither Dalip Manda nor the informer Suresh Bishnoi S/o Phusa Ram Bishnoi had witnessed the incident. After around one month and nine days of the incident, two close relatives of the deceased namely Ugrasen and Ramswaroop have been made witnesses to narrate the eye-witness account of the incident. A plain reading of the statements of Ugrasen and Ramswaroop which were both recorded on 24.07.2023 suggests a stereotypical recital. The above fact can be fortified with the last line of the statement of witness Ramswaroop recorded on 24.07.2023 wherein it is written that my husband’s mobile number is 9950509029, however, neither Ramswaroop is the wife of the deceased nor is he a female. The same stereotypical recital can be traced while going through the statements of Smt. Santosh Devi, Ugrasen and others. The plea of defence that both the above-mentioned witnesses Ugrasen and Ramswaroop were not the witnesses of the incident rather they are tailor-made witnesses of the incident cannot be ignored at this juncture of hearing a bail plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Another plea of defence can also be taken into consideration for the justifiable disposal of the bail plea that only with a view to ensure false conviction of the accused, enemy witnesses have been introduced after around one and a half months of the incident. Yet another defence plea is that if witnesses Ramswaroop and Ugrasen had actually seen the incident then why did they come into picture after lapse of one and a half months of the incident. What prevented them to narrate the story immediately and promptly to the police soon after the incident took place and what were the circumstances under which their statements could not be recorded at the earliest. What prevented them to narrate the story immediately and promptly to the police soon after the incident took place and what were the circumstances under which their statements could not be recorded at the earliest. Recording of the statements of relevant and partisan witnesses belatedly casts serious doubt over the genesis and genuineness of the allegation. The possibility of embellishment, concoction and false implication can also not be ruled out. It is also not comprehensible as to how the witness Suresh Bishnoi has been eliminated from the picture when he informed regarding the incident initially. It is an oddity in this case that the first-hand narration of the story has been replaced by a subsequent narration. Although this Court is not giving any final opinion with regard to the genuineness of the allegation but these facts have been considered and incorporated only with a view to make justifiable disposal of the bail application with a reasoned order and it is made clear that the observations made herein above shall not influence the trial judge or any of the parties during any stage of the trial. 7. There is another aspect of the matter whereby a theory of role of dying declaration was noticed. In a detailed statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. recorded on 24.07.2023, Santosh Devi, who happens to be the mother of deceased Navrang, proposed a different story than what has been stated in the statements of other witnesses. She stated that as soon as she received the information regarding the incident of her son getting beaten up, she rushed to the spot with her brother where both the eye-witnesses Ramswaroop and Ugrasen were present and they told them that the deceased was beaten by the accused persons including the petitioner, whereafter her son Navrang was taken to the hospital. After passing of some time, he fell unconscious. She did not claim under the statement recorded on 24.07.2023 that her son had told her the manner and mode of the incident rather on the contrary, in her previous statement recorded on 19.06.2023, she claimed that after initial treatment, her son got conscious and told her regarding the assault made upon him as well as regarding the role played by the accused persons. Interestingly, neither the police officer nor the medical officers make any whisper regarding utterances of the deceased to his mother. 8. Interestingly, neither the police officer nor the medical officers make any whisper regarding utterances of the deceased to his mother. 8. Here, in the case at hand, this Court came across two weird circumstances which are putting dent on the case of the prosecution in its nascent stage. One is elimination of independent witness from the picture and induction of relative and partisan witnesses to narrate the eye-witness account of the crime. The second circumstance noticed by this Court is the delay in recording of statement of eye-witnesses who were easily available for the investigating officer for examination when the investigating officer visited the scene of crime, hospital and the residence of the deceased. Even the wife of the deceased stated that the witnesses Ramswaroop and Ugrasen were very much present all around since they were relatives of the family of the deceased. The legal position is very much settled that evidence of relative and partisan witnesses cannot be discarded simply on this count that they are relatives, however, a duty is cast upon the Court to scrutinize the same cautiously as well as it has been held by the Supreme Court in many cases that delayed recording of the statement of prosecution witnesses will not be fatal to the prosecution in every case but a caution is required to be examined as to whether their testimonies are cogent, credible and reliable enough to explain the delay. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal & Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 4958 . The relevant para No.16 & 17 are reproduced herein below:- “16. As regards the incident of murder of the deceased, the prosecution has produced six eye-witnesses to the same. The argument raised against the reliance upon the testimony of these witnesses pertains to the delay in the recording of their statements by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In the present case, the date of occurrence was 21.12.1993 but the statements of PW1 and PW5 were recorded after two days of incident, i.e., on 23.12.1993. The evidence of PW6 was recorded on 26.12.1993 while the evidence of PW11 was recorded after 10 days of incident, i.e., on 31.12.1993. Further, it is well-settled law that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony. The evidence of PW6 was recorded on 26.12.1993 while the evidence of PW11 was recorded after 10 days of incident, i.e., on 31.12.1993. Further, it is well-settled law that delay in recording the statement of the witnesses does not necessarily discredit their testimony. The Court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible and the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. [See Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharshtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ;Mohd. Khalid Vs.State of West Bengal (2002) 7 SCC 334 ; Prithvi (Minor) Vs.MamRaj & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 279 and Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu sharma Vs. (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1 ]. 17. However, Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs. State Of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371 , is an authority for the proposition that delay in recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case. [See also Balakrushna Swain Vs. State of Orrisa, (1971) 3 SCC 192 ; Maruti Rama Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 10 SCC 670 and Jagjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 3 SCC 68]. Thus, we see no reason to interfere with the observations of the High Court on the point of delay and its corresponding impact on the prosecution case.” The trial of this case will take substantially long time and the question raised above would finally be adjudicated by the learned trial Court after taking on record the entire evidence, however, when a question of liberty of an individual comes into picture and when there is a rule of prudence as well as a rule of law in place regarding detention prior to conviction law, this court is not precluded from taking into account the above facts at the time of entertaining a bail plea and the pleas raised by the defence cannot be ignored. 9. It is well-nigh settled that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. 9. It is well-nigh settled that at pre-conviction stage, bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose for keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of criminal jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved. 10. The manner in which the primary story has been changed with the subsequent new version; the manner in which the close relatives have been made eye-witnesses after lapse of one and a half months and their statement have been recorded belatedly; the manner in which the mother of the deceased changed her version on two occasions certainly with incongruity therein; the manner in which the parrot-like recital and recording of statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. has been done in a common language and the manner in which efforts have been made to throw the statement of eye-witness Suresh Bishnoi out of the picture form a corsage of relevant points of consideration to grant the bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner who is behind the bars since more than eight months which strongly persuaded this Court to take a lenient view in granting bail to the petitioner. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 6. It is not in dispute that the case of the present petitioner does not have any distinguishable feature then to the case of co-accused Ravi Prakash who has been enlarged on bail by this Court. In this view of the matter, on the ground of parity and to maintain judicial discipline and consistency, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter. 7. In this view of the matter, on the ground of parity and to maintain judicial discipline and consistency, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.