also started beating him. On his cries, his wife Narain Dei, daughter Pushpawati, Anupam, Jitendra and Antima rushed to save him. Then one of the accused Niranjan hit the wife of the complainant Narayan Dei on her head and rest of the other named accused persons hit all of them by lathi-danda. In the first information report, seven persons including the appellant were named, but the appellants were assigned a general role of wielding lathi and danda in their hands, whereas as per the medical report of the victim, there were total nine injuries and some of the injuries were shown to be on the head, which were alleged to have been caused by Niranjan, in whose hands the opposite party No. 2-informant as well as injured have shown iron-rod, but the appellants were not shown any weapon. Only general allegation was leveled against them that they were having lathi and danda and they hit the injured as well as the complainant, thus, in absence of any specific role or any specific weapon assigned to the present appellants, it cannot be said that the injuries were caused by hitting of the appellants, whereas in fact the appellants were not present on the spot. Only as they were family members of Niranjan, the main culprit, thus, their names were taken by the complainant to give gravity to the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that there was no any independent eye-witness, who supports the prosecution case nor the other injured Ashok Kumar, Anupam have assigned any specific role to the appellants. They have assigned the role to Niranjan, who hit Narain Dei by iron rod on her head, thus, it has been argued that in absence of any specific allegation or role or weapon, assigned in the hands of the present appellants, the appellants their bail-application may be considered by this Court sympathetically and they may be released on bail.
