Order : CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.250/2024, registered at P.S. Bichhwal, District Bikaner for the offences under Sections 103(1), 109(2), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 & 61(2)(a) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 22.01.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Leaned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case and there are nothing incriminating evidence on record to connect the present appellant with the alleged crime. He further submitted that there was a land dispute going on between the parties and cross FIRs have been lodged on the complaints given by both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that no specific injury caused to the injured, more particularly deceased Bajrang, has been attributed to the present appellant. The article seized from the appellant have been sent for FSL examination. There is no mobile location of the appellant-accused at the spot of incident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the co-accused Kishanlal has already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.02.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No.218/2025. The case of the present appellant is not distinguishable than that of the co-accused Kishanlal who has been enlarged on bail. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the appellant-accused is in custody since long and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submitted that there was a compromise meeting held to solve the dispute of land which was going on between both the parties. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. They submitted that there was a compromise meeting held to solve the dispute of land which was going on between both the parties. In that meeting, appellant Mangilal along with other co-accused persons caused grievous injuries to Bajrang Lal (deceased) with an intention to kill him. Injured Bajrang Lal succumbed to the injuries. Rahul Nayak and Sitaram who came to rescue Bajrang Lal were also assaulted by the accused persons and they also received injuries. As per postmortem report of deceased Bajrang Lal, he sustained 21 injuries. The cause of death was haemorhagic shock due to multiple antemortem injuries which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Due to injuries caused by the accused-appellant the deceased Bajrang Lal has expired. They therefore prayed that the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant be dismissed. 8. From perusal of the charge-sheet it is revealed that on 03.10.2024, the accused-appellant along with other co-accused persons have hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of Bajrag Lal and as per their plan, on 04.10.2024 they assaulted on Bajrang with Lathi, iron pipe and scissors and committed his murder. The accused persons also assaulted on Sita Ram and Rahul Nayak, who came to rescue Bajrang Lal. 9. The weapon used in the commission of offence i.e. one scissors, iron pipe and Lathi have been recovered and seized in the matter. 10. The witnesses viz. Sitaram and Rahul Nayak in their statements recorded under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, have levelled allegations that the accused-appellant has active role in the commission of crime and in inflicting specific injuries. The eye witnesses and other relevant witnesses of the prosecution are yet to be examined before the learned Trial Court. 11. The case of the co-accused Kishan Lal is different than that of the present appellant. No recovery has been effected from the co-accused Kishan Lal, whereas from the present appellant, a Lathi has been recovered. There are no allegations of causing specific injuries against the accused Kishan Lal whereas the witnesses have told that there is active role of the appellant Mangi Lal in inflicting specific injuries to the deceased Bajrang Lal so also the other injured persons Sitaram and Rahul Nayak. There are no allegations of causing specific injuries against the accused Kishan Lal whereas the witnesses have told that there is active role of the appellant Mangi Lal in inflicting specific injuries to the deceased Bajrang Lal so also the other injured persons Sitaram and Rahul Nayak. In the postmortem report, it has come that the injuries were caused with a sharped edged weapon. 12. This Court finds that at this stage, when the Investigating Officer, eye witnesses to the incident and the other relevant witnesses are yet to be examined, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant has not committed any offence. The involvement of the accused-appellant in the commission of offence can be ascertained only after recording of the statements of the witnesses. No comment can be made on the merits/demerits of the case at this stage. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-appellant. 14. The appeal is, therefore, rejected at this stage.