JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr. P. C. 2. I have heard arguments. 3. It is alleged that Babu Lal, Doongar Singh, Mahesh and Babu Raika were proceeding from Raikabagh area towards Railway level crossing, on 17-12-1975 near about 5-30 to 6 00 p. m. The petitioner accused Hukam Singh at that time when he was standing at the gate of his Bungalow. He called Babu and his companions for drink and dinner. When the party of Babu Lal entered the house of the petitioner, he took them in a room and closed the same. There, he offered drinks to the party and during the course of the drinking bout, he asked Babu and others why some Munshida was murdered by them and in what manner. Mahesh exhibited ignorance. Thereupon, the petitioner took out his knife and asked them to tell the whole truth, as he had already come to know from one Riaz Mohammed that it were Mahesh and Doorgar Singh who had committed the murder of Munshida. It is further alleged that Hukam Singh inflicted a knife blow on the face of Mahesh. When he aimed the second blow Mahesh warded it off on his hand which was injured. Meanwhile Doongar Singh intervened and he too was stabbed into his abdomen. The accused also threatened that he will avenge the murder of Munshida by killing them all. Seeing the brawl, the wife of the petitioner came along with her child and entreated him in the name of his child to deliver the knife to her. The petitioner agreed to her entreaties and delivered the knife to her, but he went inside threatening to return With a revolver. In the interval the party of Babu managed to escape from the house. 4. An information of this occurrence was lodged by Babulal in the Police Station, Udai Mandir, Jodhpur at about 910 p. m. When the injured were forwarded to the hospital by the police for examination, the following injuries were found on the person of Mahesh : (1) Incised wound 0-5 c. m. x 0.2 c. m. x skin deep posteriorly at ear lobule juncture. (2) Incised wound with abrasion 2 0 c. m. x 01 c. m. x skin deep right or lobule posteriorly. (2) Incised wound with abrasion 2 0 c. m. x 01 c. m. x skin deep right or lobule posteriorly. (3) Abrasion 2'Q c. m. x 0 2 c. m. right hand on dorsal medial aspect about 1-0 c. m. from wrist, (4) Abrasion 0.4 c.m, x 0-2 c. m. about 2.5 c. m. close to injury No. 3. (5) Incised wound 4-5 c. m. x l-5 c. m. x skin deep from left lobule of ear extending obliquely downwards to face. (6) Abrasion 1.5 c. m.x 0.5 c. m. left eye brow outer aspect. (7) Abrasion 1.5 c. m.x O.3 c. m. left zygomatic region. (8) Incised wound 5 c. m. x 2.2 c. m. muscle deep left wrist posteriorly. 5. Doongar Singh was found to have sustained an incised wound 3-0 c.m. x 08 c. m. in epigastrium on left side above the umbilicus. He had to be operated and one hole was found in the peritoneum. The wound had divided the left rectus muscle its medial half and had penetrated the peritoneum. At the time when Doongar Singh was taken to the hospital, he was not in a position even to speak. 6. The accused Hukam Singh was arrested on 18-12-1975 by the police but no knife was recovered even upon a search of his house. 7. The police has submitted a chalan. An application for bail was rejected by the Magistrate. Bail was also refused by the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur by his order dated 23-12-1975. 8. The learned Sessions Judge observed that the act of the accused was not committed in a state of intoxication and was without provocation and fell within the mischief of section 307 Indian Penal Code The incident took place in the heart of the city and was considered by the learned Sessions Judge to be too serious to allow the accused to be enlarged on bail. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner now, submits that the case is not of a very serious nature and does not go beyond the ambit of Section 324 or 325 Indian Penal Code It is not at all a case of 307 Indian Penal Code There is no danger of the accused absconding, because the same can be ensured against by proper sureties. The witnesses have already been examined by the police and there is no danger of their being tampered with. The witnesses have already been examined by the police and there is no danger of their being tampered with. It was, therefore, a fit case in which the accused should be enlarged on bail. The consideration which prevailed with the learned Sessions Judge should not stand in the way of his being released on bail. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor said that Hukam Singh has been indulging in such type of activities previously also. He referred me to Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1975 RLW 425 where he attempted to shoot one Col. Megh Singh. Being a dangerous character and looking to the circumstances in which he attacked Mahesh and Doongar Singh by inviting them for drink and dinner in his house, the bail application should be rejected. 11. I have considered over the matter and. it appears to me that in the circumstances of this case the petitioner Hukam Singh prima facie appears to have committed on offence under Section 301 Indian Penal Code He is also alleged to have threatened the prosecution witness Babu Lal as is clear from the affidavit Babulal has filed before the Magistrate. I do not consider it a fit case for bail and do hereby reject this application. *******