JUDGMENT 1. - Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned public prosecutor, and the learned counsel for the complainant. Persued the case-diary. 2. The accused-petitioner and co-accused Mst. Manohari are facing trial in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (2). Alwar for offences under sections 302, 200 and 720-B, IPC for causing the murder of Chhittar Gujar. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that the deceased Chhitar Gujar was living with his wife Mst. Manohari (co-accused) and his son Sanwata (aged about 12 or 13 years) in a Chhappar the deceased had raised at his well in Mauja Mohammed P. S. Behrod district Alwar. Mst. Manohari developed illicit intimacy with the accused-petitioner. Chhitar was standing as an obstacle in their way. They, therefore, hatched a conspiracy to finish Chhitar for ever. In the night between 10th and 11th August, 1983 when Chhitar was sleeping on a cot in his Chhapar, the accused-petitioner and Mst. Manohari over powered him caused injuries to him and dropped him down in the well. Next day Chhitar's dead body was found floating in the well. It is alleged that the occurrence was seen by the deceased son Sanwta. He was threatened with dire consequences by the accused-petitioner in case he dared to disclose the incident to any person. Sanwta, however, went to his uncle Basanta early in the morning of August 11, 1983 and apprised him of the incident as to how his father Chhitar was put to death by the accused petitioner and his mother Mst. Manohari. Next day, the dead body of Chhitar was noticed floating in the water of the well. Basanta went to the concerned police station and brought the Station House Officer there. The dead body was taken out and an inquest of the victims dead body was prepared. Basanta was present at that time and he was included as a panch witness in the inquest memo. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead body revealed that the cause of his death was asphyxia due to drowning. The police did not register any case and made no investigation. Basanta, thereafter, presented a complaint on September, 6, 1983 against the accused-petitioner and Mst. The post-mortem examination of the victims dead body revealed that the cause of his death was asphyxia due to drowning. The police did not register any case and made no investigation. Basanta, thereafter, presented a complaint on September, 6, 1983 against the accused-petitioner and Mst. Manohari in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Behrod for offences under sections 302 and 323, IPC, The magistrate sent the complaint to the police with direction to register the case and make investigation. The police thereafter registered a case. The accused-petitioner remained absconded for a petty long time and could not be arrested. It is also alleged that Mst. Manohari made an extra judicial confession before one Mst. Chandni and Chhitar Shivnath. On the completion of investigation, the police presented a challan against the accused-petitioner and Mst. Manohari in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Behrod, who in his turn committed the case for trial to the Court of Sessions. The case came for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. An Application for bail was moved before him, but it was disallowed. 4. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is not an iota of evidence to connect him with the murder oft Chhitar. It was argued that as per post-mortem examination report, the death of Chhitar was due to asphyxia by drowning. Sanwta, who is alleged to be an eye witness of the occurrence did not disclose this fact to anybody so much so that when his statement was recorded by police on September 15, 1983, that is to say, nearly after a month of the occurrence. He never came forward as an ocular witness of the incident. On the contrary, he stated that he was being pressurised by some villagers mainly his uncle Basanta to depose against the accused-petitioner and his mother Manohari. It was only on November, 28, 1983 that he first of all came out as an eye witness of the incident. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by co-accused Mst. Manohari before Mst. Chandani and Chhitar Bawariya is in fact no confession. According to the statement of these two witnesses recorded during investigation, all that co-accused Mst. Manohari stated before them is that of whatever the destine took place. The extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by co-accused Mst. Manohari before Mst. Chandani and Chhitar Bawariya is in fact no confession. According to the statement of these two witnesses recorded during investigation, all that co-accused Mst. Manohari stated before them is that of whatever the destine took place. These two persons also remained silent upto August 20, 1983 and did not disclose the extrajudicial confession to anybody before them. 5. In reply, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and the learned public prosecutor that Sanwta, who is the only eye witness in the case, is a son of co-accused Mst. Manohari. He was under her influence and pressure. He, therefore, could not dare to state the incident before the police in his earlier statements. It was only after the pressure of his mother was removed that he came out with the true story. It was further submitted that in case the accused-petitioner is released on bail, it would pose a danger to the life of Sanwta. It was also argued that threats of the dire (dire) consequences have been held out to the other prosecution witnesses on behalf of the accused-petitioner and Mst. Manohari. Though Mst. Manohari was released on bail by this Court, an application for cancellation of her bail has been moved and is still pending. The case is at the initial stage and no charges have been framed as yet. It would, therefore, be not advisable to release the accused-petitioner on bail. I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 6. It is not a stage for me to delve deeply into the matter and judge the case on merits. However, two striking features cannot be ignored even at this stage. The first is that the only ocular witness of the case, namely Sanwta has made inconsistent statements from stage to stage. In his earlier statement recorded on September 15, 1983, during investigation, he stated that his father had become insane. He did not disclose at that time that his father was put to death by the accused-petitioner and his mother Manohari. It was only on November 28, 1983, that is nearly after 3.5 months of the incident that he alleged himself for the first time to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. He did not disclose at that time that his father was put to death by the accused-petitioner and his mother Manohari. It was only on November 28, 1983, that is nearly after 3.5 months of the incident that he alleged himself for the first time to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. The other striking feature is that his uncle Basanta, to whom the incident was narrated by Sanwta in the morning of August 11, 1983, also, remained silent and lodged no report at the police station. Contrary, he brought the police on the spot when the dead body was taken out from the well. He was present when the inquest was prepared. In fact, he has been mentioned as one of the panch witnesses of the inquest report. Yet he remained silent and did not state before the police at the time of preparing the inquest report that Chhitar was done to death by the accused-petitioner and Mst. Manohari. The extra judicial confession by co-accused Manohari was also not disclosed by the concerned persons at once before the police. These striking features of the case cannot be lost sight of while deciding this application for bail. 7. It is true that petitions have been addressed to various authorities by Sanwta minor boy of 12-13 years, seeking their indulgence in the matter. But this has hardly effect to be taken into consideration while deciding this bail application. The apprehension of the prosecution witnesses that they would be intimidated or terrorised by the accused-petitioner in case he is released on bail, is only a fanciful suggestion. 8. It would not be out of place to mention here that the investigation has changed hands from time to time. It was first investigated by Police, Behrod, then by Police, Bansur and later on by the Circle officer. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence collected against the accused-petitioner, would not be improper to release the accused-petitioner Chandgi Ram on bail. 10. The application is consequently allowed. Accused Chandgiram will be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence collected against the accused-petitioner, would not be improper to release the accused-petitioner Chandgi Ram on bail. 10. The application is consequently allowed. Accused Chandgiram will be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 8000/- together with two sureties each in the amount of Rs, 4,000/- the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (2), Alvar to put appearance in his court on the next date of hearing and subsequently on all the dates of hearings till the trial lasts.Appeal allowed. *******