JUDGMENT 1. - This is a bail application under section 439 Cr. P.C. by Ramji Das and Basanti Lal. An application was earlier made by four persons namely Ramji Das, Basanti Lal, Bhajan Singh and Dharam Singh. The application of Bhajan Singh and Dharam Singh was accepted but that of Ramji Das and Basanti Lal was rejected by this court's order dated March 4, 1976. Ramji Das and Basanti Lal have again made this second application. The ground of rejection of their earlier application was stated by this court as follows "I have gone through the evidence and it shows that some of the witnesses namely Dharam Chand, Roop Singh, Hukam Singh and Ram Das said that when the fatal blow was being administered to Jasbir Singh accused Ramji Das and Basanti Lal caught hold of him." 2. The learned counsel read over the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and submitted that what the aforesaid witnesses had stated was that Ramji Das and Basanti Lal Setiya caught deceased Jasbir Singh, dragged him down the "Chabutari" and carried him pushing towards a telephone pole on the other side of his factory where Subhash stabbed him with a knife. It is true that the correct thing to say would be as the learned counsel has pointed out. But that does not affect the merits in so far as the part played by the applicants is concerned because they were responsible for dragging the accused to his assailant 3. The second ground which the learned counsel urged was that the police had submitted a report under section 169 against these persons. There were two sets of witnesses in this case. According to one set the applicants were not present even at the scene of occurrence while the other witnesses, who have been named above, have assigned some part to the applicants. Where there are two sets of witnesses one contradicting the other, it is not possible for any court to convict any person on such type of evidence. 4. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the provisions of section 437 Cr. P. C. according to which, the accused is entitled to be released on bail where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. 4. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the provisions of section 437 Cr. P. C. according to which, the accused is entitled to be released on bail where there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt. It was also submitted that there was no danger of the accused absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses and they will face the trial. 5. The learned counsel further drew my attention to an order of 12th March, 1976 of the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar by which he enlarged two more accused persons on bail. 6. The learned counsel for opposite party Mr. Arora submits that the previous application was rejected on March 4, 1976 and this application has been made only two days thereafter without there being any new ground arising in between. 7. I have considered over the submissions made by both the parties. It appears to me that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have committed a non-bailable offence and in the circumstances to which 1 have already referred above. I do not think that they are entitled to be released on bail during trial. Merely because some witnesses have said that the applicants were not present at the scene of occurrence it is not a stage when it can be said that other witnesses, who affirmed their presence, are not reliable. The Sessions Judge has released two more persons on bail can also be no valid ground for accepting this application, 8. I, therefore, see no force in this application and hereby reject the same. *******