Surendra Singh, J. - (1.) APPLICANTS -Nepal and Mahendra seek bail in Case Crime No. 217 of 2011, under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302, 506, 452 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Dhaulana, District Ghaziabad. Heard Learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri Sunil Vashisth, Learned Counsel appearing for the informant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) IT is argued by the Learned Counsel for the applicants that the applicants are named in the F.I.R. along with 5 other co -accused persons. As per the allegation contained in the F.I.R. both the applicants were armed with Ballam and pharsa respectively and rest of the accused persons were armed with lathi and danda and caused injuries to the deceased, Ram Niwas who had sustained four injuries on his person while 7 other persons were also injured. It is further argued that neither the deceased nor any of the injured persons had sustained any injury which could be said to have been caused by sharp edged weapon. He has further submitted that one injured Bhoop Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the applicants were armed with country made pistol and lathi respectively while other co -accused, Pappan and Amit armed with pharsa and ballam respectively and rest of accused persons having been armed with lathi and danda caused injury to the deceased and other injured persons. At the same time, another injured Jaivir has reiterated the version of the F.I.R. He has further submitted that in view of the nature of allegations contained in the F.I.R. and contradictory statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecution evidence does not inspire any confidence and the applicants are entitled to the benefit of being released on bail at this stage. Relying upon the statement of the injured mentioned hereinabove, another Bench of this Court had granted bail to co -accused, Papan and Amit vide order dated 9.11.2011 in criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 30215 of 2011. Under these circumstances, the applicants who are in jail since 17.8.2011, having no criminal history to their credit, deserve to the released on bail at this stage. The bail is, however, opposed by the learned A.G.A. and Learned Counsel appearing for the informant and have submitted that the applicants are not entitled to get the benefit given to other co -accused persons, Pappan and Amit relying upon the statements of the injured persons. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. Considering the nature of the argument advanced and the allegations contained in the F.I.R., the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicants Nepal and Mahendra involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions: - 1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. 2. They will not pressurise/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3. They will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail. ;