Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contended by learned counsel that the main allegation of causing injuries to the deceased Niranjan are against other accused Hari Ram, Sita Ram, Puran and Manko Bai. It is also contended that Balram who is eye witness in the present case in his statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that alongwith Hari Ram, Sita Ram, Puran and Manko Bai, 8 to 10 other persons were also present and name of these 8 to 10 persons were not mentioned by eye-witness Balram. It is also contended that police did not conduct any identification parade. The main eye witness Balram has not named the present appellant in the alleged crime and police has implicated appellant in the present case, without substantiating the fact by conducting the identification parade. There is no direct or in direct evidence available on the record indicating the involvement of the present appellant in the alleged crime. In the CCTV footage also the presence of the present appellant was not found. It is also contended that similarly placed co-accused Dharmilal Bairwa, Rinku Kumar, Shyamveer Mahawar, Naresh Kumar Meena, Munesh Kumar Meena, Gautam Meena have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 08.08.2024, 19.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 respectively. Appellant is in custody since long and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed.
