- (1.) M. L. Singhal, J. Heard S/shri J. S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the accused-applicants, Shri R. N. Tewari, Special Counsel for C. B. I, and Shri Giridhar Nath, Standing Counsel, C. B. I.
(2.) THE murder of one Shri Mahendra Singh, M. L. A. was committed on 13th September, 1992. THE only evidence against the two accused-applicants is that on 18th June, 1996 one A. K. 47 Rifle from the possession of the accused-applicant Pal Singh and one SLR from the possession of the accused-applicant Jai Pal Gujjar was recovered while they were resting at the house of one Jasbir Singh, who supplies weapons to different persons. THE report of the expert shows that these weapons have been used in the commission of the instant crime. THE learned Counsel for the accused-applicant further vehemently argued that the occurrence took place in the year 1992, while the two weapons were recovered in the year 1996 after a gap of (our years when the two accused- ap plicants were taking rest at the house of one person, who supplies weapons to dif ferent persons, as is the case of the prosecution. THEre is no evidence on the record that from the year 1996 these weapons have been in the possession of the accused-applicants, the weapons might have changed hands. THE recovery of weapons is not immediately after the oc currence. The learned Special Counsel for the C. B. I. argued that the offence is serious one. The accused- applicants are creating terrors in the Courts and in such cases, bail should not be granted. The learned Coun sel relied upon decisions of the cases, Modem Mohan v. State of U. P. , 1996 Cr U 1441; Mazahar Ali v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1123; Gandaram Tana v. State, 1982 Cr LJ 1229; Chandrawati v. State of UP. , 1992 (29) ACC 602; Anil Kumar v. State of Raj as than, 1992 Cri LJ 3637; Bhagban Bhoi v. State, 1993 Cri U 286; Narasimha Munhy v. State, 1991 Cri LJ 3205; Anand Fondu Solyekar v. State, 1997 Cri U 1313; Push- pawati v. State, 1996 Cri U 1532; Gurchuran Singh v. State (Delhi Administra tion), 1978 (15) ACC 86; Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan, 1987 (24) ACC 425; Stare of Maharashtra v. Buddhikota Subba Rao, 1994 (31) ACC88 (SC): Smt. Simla Devi v. State of Bihar, 1994 (31) ACC 156 f SC); Sant Ram v. State of Harytma, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 205-Relied on; State of Orissa v. Rajendra Prasad Bharadia, 1994 ACC 581; 1995 JIC 547 (SC); Vikas v. State of Haryana, 1998 (1) RCR (Cr) 810; and State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe, 1991 MIC 463 (SC) 1991 (Supp) ACC 93-Relied on. The recovery is not immediately after the commission of the offence, but after a period of four years. The accused-applicants Pal Singh alias Pala alias Lakkad alias Harpal Singh and Jai Pal Gujjar, involved in Case Crime No. 371 of 1992, under Sections 147, 148, 120-B, 302, 307, 326, I. P. C. and under Section 27, Arms Act, Police Station Dadri, District Ghaziabad shall he admitted to bail on their furnish ing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. Bail granted. .;