JUDGMENT 1. - This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner Mahavir Prasad. 2. The contention of Mr. Bhargava learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the incident took place on 9-4-87 and the petitioner is in custody since 20-4-87. This is a matter in which three murders took place and 8 accused are involved. It is pointed out that when the first bail application of the petitioner was considered on 14-12-87, the same was rejected on the sole ground that the name of the accused-petitioner was mentioned by Auto Rickshaw driver Karan Singh who had stated in his statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. that the petitioner had travelled in his auto rickshaw to the spot where the incident took place and thereafter had returned back in his auto rickshaw and asked him to drive away quickly as a murder had taken place. 3. It is now pointed out by the learned counsel that Karan Singh has been examined as a prosecution witness on 12-8-87 and a certified copy of his statement has been filed alongwith this application. It is also pointed out that this witness has stated that he does not know the petitioner Mahavir and that he had not taken any person or persons in his auto rickshaw to the spot where the incident took place. It is, therefore, stressed that the only evidence on account of which the bail application of the petitioner was rejected does not exist any more. No other prosecution witness has named the petitioner. Apart from that. it is also pointed out that no weapon of offence has been recovered at his instance by the prosecuting agency It is, therefore, submitted that in these circumstances there is no prima facie involvement of the petitioner in the unfortunate incident that took place. 4. It is regretable that in several bail applications none appears on behalf of the State and even in this matter in which the State had thought fit to file an application for cancellation of bail, which was disposed of by order dated 14. 12.87, none has cared to appear and to put up the side of the State. This application was filed on 5-1-88 and has come up for hearing only today. 12.87, none has cared to appear and to put up the side of the State. This application was filed on 5-1-88 and has come up for hearing only today. This casual attitude of the State shows that they are not keen and are absolutely careless to contest bail applications even in such important cases like this. 5. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 20-4-87, and as pointed out by the learned counsel the only witness who had taken his named was Karan Singh autorickshaw driver. In the statement recorded in the court, this witness has not named the accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody for more than one year and is only 20 years old. In the facts and circumstances, without causing any prejudice to either of the parties on merits I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kota (1) for appearing in his court during the trial or whenever called upon to do so. 6. A copy of this order be sent to the Govt. Advocate.Bail Granted. *******