Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the Challan papers.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the accused Applicant submitted that co -accused, namely, Durga Ram, against whom identical allegations have been made, has been granted bail by this Court on 07.06.2011 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3741/2011. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and he relied upon the statement of Oma Ram recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure in which the said witness has stated that the Petitioner and Durga Ram were seen in the house of Ganpat Ram on 25.01.2011 and after which Moola Ram's body was found lying in the 'Chowk' on 26.01.2011. Similar statements have been given by Sohan Ram also. Apart from this, there appears to be no evidence to connect the accused Applicant with the alleged crime.
(3.) HAVING considered fact that the co -accused Durga Ram has been granted indulgence of bail this Court and there appears to be no difference in the evidence adduced as against the Petitioner vis -a -vis the evidence against the Durga Ram, this Court is inclined to accept this bail application.;