JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. A case for the s under Section 302 & other Sections of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at police station Seeswali (District Kota) on a report lodged by one. Ramnarain wherein it was alleged that the petitioner who has been shown as an accused in that report, fired gun which hit Ram Gopal who succumbed to his gun hot injuries. According to Shri Bajwa, in Panchayat elections of 5th June, 1988 for Pachas & Sarpanch of village Baldara (Tehsil Arita & District Kota). Nihal Ahmed (petitioner's father) was also a candidate apart from the informant, Ramnarain, the opponents wrangled around 5 p m all of a sudden when disturbances broke out by making as aults, thereby among others, the polling party members received injuries, Even police personnel on duty were attacked in a writ large chaos and in this ensuing confusion a person from the crowd sustained a fire-arm injury and died. According to Shri Bajwa, whilst the opposite party ceased the opportunity in a motive to make political capital, they lodged a cooked report at the police station indulging in equivocation by involving the petitioner falsely with the assertion that the petitioner had fired at the deceased. Pertinent fact is that two other F.I.Rs. (No. 61,88 & 62/88) were also lodged of the same incident- FIR No. 61/88 was lodged by the Returning Officer, himself, wherein it has neither been mentioned that the petitioner had fired gun which hit the deceased nor his participation has been shown. 3. Shri S. R. Bajwa then added that during the course of investigation, the complainant party initially tried to exercise their influence on the local police but, according to the police. the petitioner has been falsely implicated and when the local police could not come under their influence, this case was got transferred to the CID with which the investigation is pendente. 4. Next is the crucial contention of Shri S. R. Bajwa that throughout it period of eleven months no action to apprehend the petitioner has been taken by the investigating agency, but. 4. Next is the crucial contention of Shri S. R. Bajwa that throughout it period of eleven months no action to apprehend the petitioner has been taken by the investigating agency, but. now all of a sudden because of the political rivalry, the CID-according to which also, the petitioner has been falsely implicated- changed its mind and the CID personnel are bent upon a resting the petitioner whereas he is completely innocent, in a case where his, father's political antagonists are indulging prevarication against him so as to settle their political scores with his further and thus the petitioner is a mere pawn in the political stratagem of his father's antagonists. 5. According to Shri Bajwa on the day of the incident, the petitioner who has presently been working as Hydro-geologist after being selected through the Union Public Service Commission, was in Udaipur as Assistant Hydro-geologist in connection with his job as is verified by various documents such as letter dated 17.5.1988 written to him by his Superior Officer fixing his tour programme, cash memo of repiir work with regard to Govt. Jeep No. RRM 3531 which was left at his exclusive disposal for official use tour diary of the petitioner. T A bill passed by the department and that apart the log book of the Jeep RRM 3531 which corroborates the plea of alibi taken by the petitioner. Further, Shri Bajwa added that ti%: various documents, it is abundantly clear that on the day of incident 5.6.1988, the petitioner was at Udaipur. 6. Shri Rajwa also contended drawing my attention to some of the eye witnesses that they in their statements before the police have come forward with the version that the crucial fire was made by some of other persons some witnesses named Abdul Munaf as author of the crucial fire whereas other witnesses indulged one Fakiriya for making that fire whilst few witnesses named Salam as a person responsible for that crucial fire. The significant point lighted by Shri Bajwa is that all the persons (ut supra) who have been named by sonic of the witnesses as being responsible for crucial fire have already been released on bail under Section 439. Cr.P.C. 7. The significant point lighted by Shri Bajwa is that all the persons (ut supra) who have been named by sonic of the witnesses as being responsible for crucial fire have already been released on bail under Section 439. Cr.P.C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that in the election, petitioner's father was vouched as Sarpanch and the informant of the present FIR No. 60/88 who was also a candidate in the said election was defeated and because of defeat, his attitude became revengeful and that, his father is active member of Congress (I) whereas antagonist belong to Bharatiya Junta Party who could not relish the popularity of his father, and in this background, the petitioner-eldest son of his father & the only earning member in family, has been indulged by the opposite party in false accusation. 8. According to Shri Bajwa, since in FIR Nos. 61 /88 & 62/88 which also pertains to the same incident, it has not been mentioned that the petitioner or his relatives were the persons who initially assaulted or that the accused party was aggressor false accusation appears to he fortified by the circumstances pointed out by him; inasmuch as the gun has already been recovered and no other investigation yet requires to be done from the petitioner as he is well known to the complainant party and no question of any identification arises in this case. 9. Thus, lastly, Shri Bajwa contended that from the date of incident till date, the petitioner has regularly been attending his official work and regularly going to his office within this span of time, no attempt whatsoever was made to arrest the petitioner which shows that the prosecution agency is still in doubt as to whether the petitioner can be arrayed as accused in the case and this circumstance according to him is suffice to accept this bail application. 10. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposed the bail application vehmently but obviously admitted the position that many of the eye witnesses in their statements before the police have stated that the gun fire was made by some different persons-some indulged Abdul Munaf whilst some named Fakiriya and Salam being responsible for making crucial fire. Learned Public Prosecutor also obviously admitted that for the incident in question, three reports have been lodged on which FIR Nos. Learned Public Prosecutor also obviously admitted that for the incident in question, three reports have been lodged on which FIR Nos. 60/88, 61/88 & 62/88 have been chalked out and according to him in the FIR Nos. 61/88, 62/88, name of the petitioner has not at all been mentioned and further that in these two F.I.R. neither the petitioner nor other accused persons have been mentioned as aggressors. Learned Public Prosecutor could not controvert rather admitted that the petitioner has regularly been attending the office and that on interrogations the petitioner raised a plea of alibi on which also investigation was done and that apart it has been admitted that superior officer of the petitioner who fixed the tour programme of the petitioner has not been examined til (illegible) and in my view, who was the best person to have verified the facts given by the petitioner. Next admission wrung out from his contention (learned P. P.'s) is that the informant of the present FIR No. 60/88 was contesting, elections against the father of the petitioner wherein the petitioner's father was declared as elected Sarpanch and the petitioner is the eldest son of Nihal Ahmed, who is at present a Gazetted Officer and is working as Assistant Hydro Geologist in the Office of Geological Survey of India-Central Ground Water Board. 11. I have considered the points raised and the facts alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner which could not be controverted rather admitted by the learned Public Prosecutor obviously. 12. At this stage, I do not want to express any opinion on the merits of the case and so also the plea of alibi raised by the petitioner. The learned subordinate court in its order dated 18.5.89 observed that the petitioner was regularly attending his office and no attempt to arrest was made by the prosecution or investigating agency throughout the period of investigation. A specific querry was made to the. learned Public Prosecutor as to why the petitioner could not be apprehended but he failed to answer straight forward. At this stage, I am unable that apart refrain myself, to concur with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency was in doubt as to whether the petitioner can/could be prayed as an accused but, in my view, this circumstance cannot be eschewed as irrelevant for while deciding this bail petition. 13. At this stage, I am unable that apart refrain myself, to concur with this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency was in doubt as to whether the petitioner can/could be prayed as an accused but, in my view, this circumstance cannot be eschewed as irrelevant for while deciding this bail petition. 13. In view of what has been narrated above, I am of the opinion that this a fit case where the petitioner has successfully brought special circumstances convassing me to exercise the powers of discretion under Section 438. Cr.P.C. in his favour. Accordingly, this bail petition is allowed. 14. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, Police Station Seeswali is. therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner. Mohd. Nasir Khan S/o Nihal Ahmed r/o village Baldara presently r/o 221, Subhash Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, in FIR No. 60/88 he be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction on the following conditions - 1. That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. That, the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or to any police officer, and 3. That the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. Bail Granted. *******