JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. The prosecution has come with a case that the complainant party as also the accused party had some dispute about the purchase of a piece of land, which is situated adjacent to the houses of each of them. The house of the complainant and the accused are situated opposite to each other with a distance of about 80 meters. It is alleged that there was not exchange of words on a day earlier to the date of occurrence i.e. 3.1.88, in which Surendra Singh threatened to kill Richhpal Singh and his brother. It is alleged that on 3.1.88 at about 6 PM. Richhpal Singh alongwith his cousin brother Randhir Singh was standing outside the house of Richhpal Singh. At that time, Surendra Singh, accompanied by his companions Jitendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Bhola Singh, Jasbeer Singh and Mandarsingh who were all armed with either lathies, guns and Gandasis and were riding on a tractor belonging to Surendra Singh. He started the tractor towards the house of Richhpal Singh. When Richhpal Singh saw that the tractor is coming towards their house, he immediately went into his house by a small door kept in the main gate of the house. It is alleged that Surendra Singh collided the tractor with the main gate of the house by which a portion of the main gate fell down and some portion of it was broken. The tractor went inside the house to some distance. It is alleged that Satpal Singh who was inside the house came out when he heard the noise of gun fire. It is further alleged that one gun was fired outside the gate and when Satpal Singh saw that the accused was bringing the tractor inside his house after breaking the door he came to one side but the tractor was so taken by Surendra Singh that Satpal Singh fell down with the impact of the front wheel of the tractor and then his leg was crushed and causing fracture of tibia and fibula and certain other injuries were caused to him. One more fire was made to kill Richhpal Singh but that did not hit him and thereafter, it is alleged that the accused took away the tractor back to their house. 3. Mr. One more fire was made to kill Richhpal Singh but that did not hit him and thereafter, it is alleged that the accused took away the tractor back to their house. 3. Mr. H.S. Sandhu, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant for the accused-appellant Bhola has submitted that no overt act has been assigned to accused Bhola Singh. It is alleged that he came on the tractor armed with lathi and inflicted on injury to anybody and, therefore, he should be released on bail. It was also submitted that the accused has been recently married and it will be unjust to keep him behind the bars. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chhinder Singh v. State, 1986 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 117 . 4. The learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Kharaliya submitted that in this case, on account of enmity regarding a plot, which both the parties wanted to purchase and about which, a threat was extended by Surendra Singh on the earlier day, the accused intentionally came to the house of Richhpal Singh while riding on the tractor and armed with deadly weapons. It is true that no body has been hit but the site-inspection memo shows that pallets holes & signs were found not only on the main gate at place A but also inside the house at place F, which shows that the guns were fired in or around the house of Richhpal Singh and the tractor was taken inside the house after breaking doors of the house and, therefore, it is an intentional act on the part of the accused. It is not a case where Bholasingh jumped from the tractor on seeing the criminal acts of other accused-persons. All the time, he remained on the tractor when the tractor has broken the door of the house and crushed the legs of Satpal Singh or when the guns were fired. Actually, the intention of the accused was to run over the tractor on Satpal Singh but the tractor collided with the wall of the house and therefore, it could be stopped otherwise it could have run over him & crushed him completely and as such, the accused deserves no leniency. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. The case is at a very initial stage of the investigation. 5. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival submissions made at the bar. The case is at a very initial stage of the investigation. The remaining accused have yet to be arrested. Taking an over all view of the facts and circumstances of the case. I do not feel inclined to enlarge the accused on bail at this stage. 6. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed at this stage.Bail application dismissed. *******