JUDGMENT Kotwal, J. - Heard Shri P. M. Pradhan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S. S. Keluskar, the learned Public Prosecutor, for the State. Perused the relevant papers of investigation including the statements of witnesses. 2. No doubt the witnesses alleged that all the four accused persons came together, entered the shop and atleast three of them assaulted the complainant and other witnesses. The motive as alleged by the prosecution refers to the promise given by one of the accused i.e. accused No. 2 to sell a wrist watch for which he had obtained an amount of Rs. 130, from complainant's brother Chhotu and he was insisting on the accused No. 2 either to give wrist watch or refund the amount, which enraged the accused. The prosecution allege that after entering the shop, accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased on head and this was followed by accused No. 3 who also assaulted the deceased on head, questioning the witnesses as to why they are demanding the money. When witness Chhotu tried to intervene accused No. 2 assaulted him with a stick on the head. Positive overt acts are thus attributed to accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 alleging that they have assaulted two victims on the head with sticks. The deceased sustained such a serious injury that he succumbed to the same while Chhotu sustained a serious injury though luckily he survived. There is thus positive material against accused Nos. 1 to 3, making out a case of individual act as well as that of common intention. It was faintly suggested on behalf of the accused that they had no intention to liquidate the deceased, but merely to punish him. This involves the process of appreciation of evidence which can well be left to the Session Court at the trial. Prima facie, however, the totality of circumstances are obviously against these accused persons. The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Keluskar, also rightly submitted that the ads are high-handed inasmuch as in a broad day light they entered the shop of the complainant and resorted to violence which according to the prosecution was a pre-determined act because they had entered the shop with that motive and were armed with sticks. The learned Public Prosecutor, Smt. Keluskar, also rightly submitted that the ads are high-handed inasmuch as in a broad day light they entered the shop of the complainant and resorted to violence which according to the prosecution was a pre-determined act because they had entered the shop with that motive and were armed with sticks. The witnesses also apprehend danger at the hands of these three accused if they are enlarged on bail and it is right apprehended further that the evidence may be tampered with. 3. Having regard to all these features, atleast to the prima facie field of this bail application, no concession of liberty can be granted to accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as has been rightly done by the learned Sessions Judge. 4. In so far as accused No. 4 is concerned a slight distinction can be made though it is clarified that it will not affect the process of appreciation at the trial and this distinction has no finality in this limited field. According to the prosecution, he was not armed with stick and it is alleged that after the assault was perpetrated, the complainant Devidas tried to intervene when this accused pulled him aside and fisted him. Under the circumstances, therefore, concession of liberty can be granted to accused No. 4. It is, however, clarified to avoid any confusion that this need not be equated with the finding that no common intention is being accepted as against accused No. 4. All these features including the liability of accused No. 4 would be considered by the Sessions Court at the trial in its unfettered discretion and the order of granting bail will not affect it either way. The contention raised by Smt. Keluskar, the learned Public Prosecutor, that the accused should be asked to stay away from the village cannot be accepted in the instant case because the record reveals as disclosed from the Sessions Court's order that the accused is a poor person and it would be difficult for him to maintain himself if he is required to go out in which event he may not be able to avail the concession of bail. He is a young boy of 22 years and it appears that all the members of the family are behind the bars. However, reporting to police station would suffice the ends of justice. 5. Petition of the petitioners Nos. He is a young boy of 22 years and it appears that all the members of the family are behind the bars. However, reporting to police station would suffice the ends of justice. 5. Petition of the petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3 (original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3) is rejected and bail is refused to all these three petitioners-accused. 6. Petition of petitioner No. 4 Ramprasad Chaturdas Bairagai (original accused No. 4) is accepted and he is directed to be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 20001- with P.R. and one solvent surety for the like amount. On getting so released, he shall report to Dondaicha Police Station in Sindhkheda taluka of Dhule district on every Thursday between 9 a.m. and 12 noon. He shall not indulge in any manner so as to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. Liberty to prosecution if bail is abused. Order accordingly