the fact that three weapons, i.e., lathi, danda and axe have been assigned in the hands of seven persons, but there is no any specific allegation against any of the accused including the appellant, even none of the accused including the appellant has been assigned any specific weapon holding in their hands, even none of the injured named any accused that he hit the injured by which weapon and a general role of assaulting has been assigned to all the accused including the present appellant; further as per postmortem report cause of death of the deceased was found to be hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries and there were only two injuries found on the person of the deceased; there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in absence of any specific role and in absence of any specific weapon assigned to any of the accused including the appellant it is a case of false implication due to village party bandi and rivalry; one co-accused, Vineeta Singh, who was also named in the F.I.R. and who was also not assigned any specific role or any specific weapon, has already been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, thus, there appears force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that case of the present appellant is not on the worse footing than that of the aforesaid co-accused and further considering the larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of UP and another , reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 , this Court is of the view that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate the material available on record. Thus, the impugned bail rejection order passed by the trial court is liable to be set aside.
