1. Petitioners are lugged and locked in F.I.R No.77/2024 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, for the offence under Section(s) 302, 323, 325, 341, 143 of the I.P.C. They have filed these applications for restoration of liberty under section 439 Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of BNSS, 2023).

2. I may briefly refer to the relevant aspects of case of prosecution, as emerging from the F.I.R. allegations which are that on 08.02.2024 complainant Kuldeep Singh filed a report at the police station Sangaria. According to the report, at around 11:00 am of that day complainant's brother Sandeep Singh had gone to “Johad” from his house on a motorcycle accompanied by Soma Singh. During this time Jaskaran Singh, Balkaran Singh, Ramandeep Singh, Himmat Singh and Jitendra Singh alias Kaka Singh hit Sandeep Singh's motorcycle with their car, causing him to fall. Then, all of them got down from the car and started beating both of them with iron rods and iron pipes. Hearing noise, complainant's mother Karamjit Kaur came to the scene and even in her presence, accused continued to beat Sandeep Singh and Soma Singh severely with iron pipes and iron rods. Balveer Singh also reached the scene. Hearing the shouts, all the accused fled from there in their car. Harjinder Singh also arrived and took Sandeep Singh along with Karamjit Kaur to Sangaria Hospital in his car. From Sangaria Hospital, Sandeep Singh was referred to Hanumangarh.

3. It is further stated that upon receiving information about the incident, complainant Kuldeep Singh reached Sangaria Hospital and saw his brother. When he asked his mother and brother Sandeep Singh about the incident, both of them told him that the aforementioned accused had beaten Sandeep Singh and Soma Singh with iron rods and iron pipes injuring them. The complainant then took his brother to Hanumangarh Hospital but due to Sandeep Singh's critical condition, he was referred to Bikaner. Unfortunately, while complainant was taking his brother to Ganganagar, Sandeep Singh died before reaching there. Sandeep Singh is now at Hanumangarh Town Hospital and Soma Singh is also there receiving treatment.

4. After receiving of the said report, a formal F.I.R. was registered, investigation was commenced and after completion of the investigation the Challan has been filed against the petitioners.

5. Shri Bhoop Singh Choudhary, learned counsel representing petitioners vehemently urged that on 08.02.2024 at 12.45 PM, an injury report of Sandeep Singh was prepared by medical officer at Sangaria Hospital, in which doctor mentioned total eight injuries on his body. Out of which, injury numbers 4 to 8 were opined as simple and blunt. Doctor had reserved his opinion for the first three injuries. After X-ray, injury number 1 to 3 were found to be fractures of hands and legs, which were not on vital parts of the body. Injury number eight on the head was opined simple in nature and X-ray was also not advised for that. On this basis, his argument is that none of these injuries could have been fatal to Sandeep Singh. The post mortem of Sandeep Singh was conducted on the 09.02.2024 at 12:15 noon. According to him, PMR mysteriously recorded total 18 injuries on his body including injury number 1 as “multiple” contusions on the head. The cause of death was stated injury number 1 resulting into coma.

6. It is further argued that as per F.I.R., doctor had referred Sandeep Singh from Hanumangarh to Bikaner on the 08.02.2024 at 3:20 pm but the complainant Kuldeep Singh did not take him to Bikaner. Instead, First Information report revealed that Sandeep Singh died on the way while being taken to Ganganagar. The postmortem report is of Hanumangarh Town Hospital, whereas he had already been discharged from there as per version of F.I.R. itself. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the mystery in this case is where the complainant Kuldeep Singh took his brother from the noon of 08.02.2024 till noon of next day, when PMR was conducted.

7. According to him, during this period, someone else has inflicted additional injuries to the deceased, in connivance with the complainant. This is the reason, why the number of injuries in PMR increased from 8 to 18, as mentioned in the post-mortem report. No fact has come on record as to where the complainant Kuldeep Singh, kept Sandeep Singh until the post mortem examination in the next day noon. He argues that if Sandeep Singh had 18 injuries on his body or multiple contusions on his head, there was no reason why the medical officer of Sangaria would not have mentioned them in the injury report. He further contends that the cause of death, stated as coma caused by head injury, is disproved by the fact that according to the First Information Report, complainant Kuldeep Singh spoke to Sandeep Singh in Sangaria Hospital and asked him about the incident. This indicates that Sandeep Singh was not in coma but was in a position to speak.

8. According to him, during the investigation, neither iron rods nor iron bars were recovered from any petitioner; only sticks were recovered. He further argued that F.I.R. mentions the incident in an omnibus way that all the petitioners were armed with iron rods and iron pipes. Complainant did not attribute any overt act to any one of them. Further, investigation ruled out any iron weapon having been used. The genesis of the incident has been concealed. Therefore, as per him, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case as brought up by them.

9. It is further argued that a false case has been foisted against them; that entire allegations so leveled by complainant against the petitioners are false and baseless. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances the petitioners may be released on bail.

10. From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there is sufficient evidence on the record to prove that Sandeep Singh was murdered by the petitioners. It was further argued that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them, petitioners do not deserve any leniency, rather they need to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

12. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by both the parties, nature of allegation as also taking note of the fact that iron rods or iron pipes have not been recovered from the petitioners; no definite overt act is attributed against any of petitioners; only omnibus allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners; the injury report of Sandeep Singh prepared by medical officer at Sangaria Hospital mentioned only eight injuries on his body, out of which, injury number 4 to 8 were opined as simple and blunt; After X-ray, injury number 1 to 3 were found to be fractures on non vital parts of the body; injury number eight was opined simple in nature and even X-ray was not advised for that; the PMR mysteriously recorded total 18 injuries on his body including injury number 1 as “multiple” contusions on the head; complainant Kuldeep Singh did not take Sandeep Singh to Bikaner; postmortem report is of Hanumangarh Town Hospital, wherefrom Sandeep Singh had already been discharged; no fact has come on record as to where the complainant Kuldeep Singh kept Sandeep Singh until the post mortem examination; if Sandeep Singh had 18 injuries on his body or multiple contusions on his head, there was no reason why the Medical Officer of Sangaria would not have mentioned them in the injury report; cause of death was coma allegedly caused by a head injury, whereas complainant Kuldeep Singh spoke to Sandeep Singh in Sangaria Hospital and asked him about the incident which prima facie, disapproves the fact of Sandeep Singh being in coma rather he was in a position to speak; that F.I.R. mentions the incident in an omnibus way; Complainant did not attribute any overt act to any of petitioner; investigation ruled out any iron weapon having been used and that genesis of the incident has been concealed. It is further seen that investigation is over and Challan of the case has already been submitted. Possibility of delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in view of the evidence available on record, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioners on bail, as petitioners have availed themselves substantial grounds so as to challenge the case of prosecution.

13. Consequently, the present bail applications are allowed and it is directed that the accused-petitioners 1. Jaskaran Singh S/o Sheetal Singh, 2. Himmat Singh S/o Chhinder Singh, 3. Jitendra Singh @ Kaka Singh S/o Shivraj Singh and 4. Gurshonk Singh S/o Angrej Singh, arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.77/2024 of Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond and two surety bonds of sufficient amount 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. This order is subject to the condition that accused, within 7 days of their release, and sureties on the day of furnishing bail, will also furnish details of their all bank accounts, with bank and branch name, in shape of an affidavit, and submit legible copy of their Aadhar cards as well as copy of front page of Bank pass book, for smooth recovery of penalty amount, if there arise a need for recovery of penalty under Section 446 Cr.P.C in future.