Order : (KULDEEP MATHUR, 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.15/2023 registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, for the offences under 341, 323 and 302/34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer whereby, the bail application preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. As per the prosecution, the complainant- Indra ram submitted a written complaint on 13.04.2023 at Police Station Girab, District Barmer, stating inter alia that on 12.04.2023, at about 07:30 am, his father Kojaram and his younger sisters Kumari Mamta and Jhammu had gone to the fields for grazing their goats. Upon seeing the complainant’s father- Kojaram, Narendra Singh S/o Gulab Singh, Ravinder Singh S/o Ram Singh, Raipal Singh S/o Dal Singh (appellant), Gulab Singh S/o Shri Dal Singh, Devi Singh S/o Dhan Singh, Mahendra Singh (Pappu Singh) S/o Jai Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Nakhat Singh came around and attacked him with sharp and blunt weapons, with an intention of killing him. When Kumari Mamta and Jhammu saw their father being beaten up, they started screaming for help to rescue him. The accused persons whereupon slapped them as well and held them by the hair. 3. In the FIR, it was further alleged that at the time when the above named persons were beating Kojaram, other persons armed with blunt weapons namely Vikram Singh S/o Sadhu Singh, Khinw Singh S/o Jai Singh, Bihari Singh S/o Nakhat Singh, Jograj Singh S/o Devi Singh, Sadhu Singh S/o Sagat Singh, Sawai Singh S/o Kesar Singh, Nakhat Singh S/o Prabhudan Singh, Ram Singh S/o Kumbh Singh and Smt. Dev Kanwar W/o Shri Gulab Singh were standing near the pond and were provoking them to commit the alleged crime by saying not to leave Kojaram alive. 4. As per the prosecution, Kojaram succumbed to the injuries caused to him by the above named co-accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. As per the prosecution, Kojaram succumbed to the injuries caused to him by the above named co-accused persons. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the charge-sheet, learned counsel submitted that though 16 persons have been named in the FIR by the complainant but the police after conducting a thorough investigation has not found the contents of the FIR and the statements of Kumari Mamta and Jhammu recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to be the correct narrations of the events which had taken place in the present case. The investigating agency has filed the charge-sheet against only three persons namely Narendra Singh, Ravinder Singh and Raipal Singh i.e. the present appellant. 6. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of eye- witnesses of the alleged incident namely Kumari Mamta and Jhammu recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW-10 and PW-11 respectively, learned counsel contended that these witnesses being the daughters of the deceased have deposed an exaggerated version of the alleged incident. Learned counsel submitted that PW-10 and PW-11 during their cross-examination have also named Mahendra Singh S/o Jai Singh, Gulab Singh, Devi Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Nakhat Singh, Ravinder Singh, Narendra Singh as the persons who had caused multiple injuries to the deceased with blunt/sharp weapons. Learned counsel submitted that a bare perusal of the statements of the eyewitnesses PW-10 and PW-11 would indicate that though prima facie the presence of the appellant has been established at the place of incident by the eye-witnesses, but no specific overt act in the alleged incident has been assigned to him. On the contrary, most of the persons who according to eye-witnesses had played an active role in the commission of the alleged crime or had beaten the deceased with blunt/sharp weapons have not even been charge-sheeted in the present case. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused persons namely Narendra Singh and Ravinder Singh have already been granted bail. On the contrary, most of the persons who according to eye-witnesses had played an active role in the commission of the alleged crime or had beaten the deceased with blunt/sharp weapons have not even been charge-sheeted in the present case. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused persons namely Narendra Singh and Ravinder Singh have already been granted bail. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody; the statements of the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident namely Kumari Mamta and Jhammu have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of petitioner influencing them; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. 8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the appellant has been named in the FIR. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, the investigating agency was handed over a video of the incident which had been recorded by the daughters of the deceased- Kojaram, clearly indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged crime. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that statements of the deceased soon before his death were also recorded by constable Mohanlal in which the deceased has mentioned the name of the appellant as an assailant. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged crime and, therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Learned counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record indicating involvement of the appellant in commission of the alleged crime and, therefore, the appellant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. The statements of PW-10 & PW-11 recorded during their cross examination have been reproduced herein below for ready reference:- PW-10 ^^ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr%& 12 rkjh[k dks eSa] esjs firkth vkSj >ew ?kj ls cdfj;ka pjkus ds fy;s ,d lkFk gh fudys Fks tks 7%30 cts fudys FksA ge ?kj ls fudys vkSj ,fj;k esa igqaps rc mijksDr 7 vkneh gesa ,fj;k esa feys FksA ,fj;k tgka ij eqyfte feys Fks ogka ls esjs ?kj dh nwjh vk/kk fdyksehVj gSA ;g lkjs eqyfteku ccwyksa esa igys ls gh Nqis gq;s cSBs FksA Nqis gq;s yksxksa esa ls jfoUnz] ujsUnz vkSj jk;ikyflag igys fudys vkSj ckdh okys ckn esa fudys FksA jfoUnz] ujsUnz vkSj jk;iky ds flok; ckdh tks yksx Nqis gq;s Fks oks Hkh rqjra gh fudy dj ckgj vk x;sA jfoUnz ds ikl ,d cgqr cM+k yB FkkA ujsUnzflag ds ikl tks ykBh Fkh oks eksVh ykBh Fkh ckal dh Fkh vkSj ml ij rkjs yisVh gqbZ FkhA nsohflag ds ikl ykBh FkhA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag ds ikl esa lfj;k FkkA nwljs egsUnzflag ds ikl esa ykBh FkhA ujsUnzflag us esjs firk th ds iSj vkSj flj ij xaHkhj pksVsa ekjh] iwjs 'kjhj ij txg txg pksVsa ekjhA ujsUnzflag us esjs firkth dks 10&15 pksVsa igqapkbZ Fkh] vt[kqn dgk fd ujsUnzflag vkSj jk;ikyflag us nksuksa us pksVsa ekjh FkhA johUnzflag us esjs firkth ds iwjs 'kjhj ij pksVsa igqapkbZA johUnzflag us esjs firkth ds flj esa pksVsa ekjh Fkh tks djhcu 10&15 ekjh FkhA xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds gkFk vkSj iSj ij pksVsa ekjhA xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds nksuksa gkFkksa vkSj iSjksa ij ykBh ls pksVsa ekjh Fkh tks djhcu 3&4 ekjh FkhA xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds flj ij pksVsa ugha ekjhA xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds ihB vkSj isV ij pksVsa ekjh Fkh tks djhcu 2&3 ekjh FkhA bu eqyfteku ds lkFk esa nsohflag iq= /kuflag Hkh Fkk ftlds ikl esa lfj;k FkkA nsohflag us esjs firkth ds dksbZ pksV ugha ekjh vt[kqn dgk fd oks [kM+s [kM+s nwljs eqyfteku dks mdlk jgk FkkA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag us esjs firkth ds lfj;s ls pksVsa ekjh FkhA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag us esjs firkth ds lfj;s ls flj esa pksV ekjh Fkh ftlls flj QV x;k Fkk vkSj Vkaxksa ij ihB esa vkSj gkFkksa ij cgqr lkjh pksVsa ekjh FkhA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag lfj;k ysdj [kM+k Fkk fQj dgk fd pksVsa Hkh ekjh FkhA----------^^ PW-11 ^^ftjg }kjk vf/koDrk vfHk;qDr%& -------- esjs firkth gels igys cdfj;ka ysdj ds jokuk ugha gq;s FksA eqyfteku jksM ij feys Fks jksM dgka ls vkrh gS vkSj dgka tkrh gS ;g eq>s ugha irkA tgka eqyfteku eq>s feys Fks oks Mkej jksM gS tks fxjkc ls vkrh gS vkSj f>>a fu;kyh dh rjQ tkrh gSA eqyfteku esjs ?kj ls vk/kk fdyksehVj nwj Fks rc ge feys FksA ;g lkjs eqyfteku ccwy dh >kfM+;ksa esa Nqis gq;s FksA eSa] esjs firkth vkSj esjh cgu lh/kh jksM jksM tk jgs Fks rc eqyfteku us ihNs ls geyk fd;k FkkA eqyfteku esa fdlds ikl esa /kkjnkj gfFk;kj Fks ;g eq>s irk ugha gSA lfj;k ,d vkneh ds ikl esa gh Fkk tks egsUnzflag iq= t;flag ds ikl esa Fkk] ckdh okys yksxksa ds ikl esa ykfB;ka FkhA esjs firkth ds flj esa egsUnzflag iq= t;flag us lfj;s dh pksV ekjh FkhA fQj esjs firkth pksV yxrs gh uhps fxj x;s FksA fQj esjss firkth ds xqykcflag us pksVsa igqapkbZA xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds fdruh pksVsa igqapkbZ ;g eq>s irk ugha ysfdu pksVs t:j igqapkbZ Fkh tks pksVsa gkFkksa] iSjks] ihB vkSj isV ij igqapkbZ FkhA eSa vankt ls ugha crk ldrh fd xqykcflag us esjs firkth ds fdruh pksVsa igqapkbZ FkhA eqyfte nsohflag ds ikl esa ml le; ykBh Fkh tks ckal dh ykBh Fkh tks yksgs dh rkjks ls eMh gqbZ FkhA nsohflag us Hkh esjs firkth ds lkFk esa ekjihV dh FkhA nsohflag us esjs firkth ds iwjs 'kjhj ij gkFkks] iSjks vkSj ihB ij lHkh txg pksVsa ekjh FkhA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag ds ikl esa ml le; lfj;k FkkA egsUnzflag iq= t;flag us esjs firkth ds flj esa lfj;s ls pksV ekjh Fkh mlds vykok mlus 'kjhj ij Hkh pksVs ekjh FkhA egsUnz flag iq= u[krflag ds ikl esa ykBh Fkh mlus Hkh esjs firkth ds 'kjhj ij 10&15 pksVs igqapkbZ Fkh tks esjs firkth ds flj esa] ihB esa] isV ij] gkFkksa vkSj iSjks ij yxh FkhA ujsUnzflag ds ikl esa ml le; ykBh FkhA mlus esjs firkth ds 20&25 pksVsa ekjh Fkh tks iwjs 'kjhj ij yxh FkhA johUnzflag ds ikl esa Hkh ykBh Fkh ftlls mlus esjs firkth ds pksVsa ekjh FkhA ml le; eSa vkSj esjh cgu esjs firkth dks NqMkus ds fy;s chp esa iMs FksA gesa ckyks ls idMdj nwj dj fn;k Fkk blfy;s pksVs ugha yxh Fkh] esjs cky ujsUnzflag us idM+s Fks] esjh cgu ds cky jfoUnzflag us idM+s FksA ge nksuksa cgus firkth dks NqMkus xbZ rc muds pksVs yxus ls [kwu vk;k gqvk FkkA ml le; esjh cgu vkSj esjs [kwu ls diM+s ugha Hkjs FksA-------^^ 11. This Court, after carefully perusing the FIR, challan papers, statements of eye-witnesses recorded before the competent criminal Court, prima facie finds that out of the total 16 persons who had been named in the FIR, only three persons including the appellant have been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency. This Court also finds that though the material available on record prima facie indicates that the appellant was present at the place of incident but the specific role in commission of the alleged crime was assigned by the eye-witnesses before the competent criminal Court, only to Mahendra Singh S/o Jai Singh, Gulab Singh, Devi Singh, Mahendra Singh S/o Nakhat Singh, Ravinder Singh and Narendra Singh, etc., This Court prima facie finds that from the above named persons to whom specific overt acts have been assigned by the eye-witnesses, except Narendra Singh and Ravinder Singh, no other persons have been charge-sheeted by the investigating agency. 12. Prima facie, the eye-witnesses during the Court statements have also stated that the head injuries were caused to the deceased by Ravinder Singh and Mahendra Singh S/o Jai Singh. This Court further prima facie finds that though the constable namely Mohanlal in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that he had recorded the statements of the deceased soon before his death, while he was being taken to the hospital, however, the same could not be produced as it had gotten deleted due to his phone being re- set. This Court further prima facie finds that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses including the eye-witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court and now there is no apprehension of appellant influencing them. 13. Thus, this Court upon a careful consideration of the materials available on record finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant. 14. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Barmer is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Raipal Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.15/2023 registered at Police Station Girab, District Barmer shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. It is ordered that the accused-appellant Raipal Singh S/o Shri Lal Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.15/2023 registered at Police Station Girab, 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.