JUDGMENT 1. - These two bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C. arise out of the same investigation now conducted by CBI, Jaipur under Crime No. R.C. 9/87-STU. III dated 18-12-87 in which the accused petitioners are alleged to have committed offence under Section 302 IPC. 2. On 23-8-87 an oral report was lodged at police station Makrana regarding murder of deceased Arjun Ram. It is alleged that while the deceased and the informant alongwith few others were purchasing some sweets from a shop in Makrana, a Jeep carrying 10 persons who were armed with pistols and guns arrived there and stopped in front of the shop. Accused Bhagirath Singh exhorted his son Rajendra Singh alias Raju to open fire on Arjun Ram who consequently shot at. Other took shelter in nearby shop. Arjun Ram died on the spot.It is contended by Shri S.R. Bajwa, learned counsel for the petitioners that initially three accused-persons namely Rapndra Singh alias Raju. Bhanwarlal and Rameshwar Lal were arrested. Subsequently they were released on bail under Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. Another accused Shrawan Kumar was released on bail under Section 439 Cr. P C by this Court and thereafter accused Mahendra Singh wat given benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 22-4-1988 passed in S B. Cr. Misc. Bail. Application No. 61/88. It is pointed out that no arrests ware made for quite a long time but recently on 23-1-1989 accused Sukh Dev was taken into custody and remand for 4 days was obtained from the Court of A.C.J.M. (C.B.I.) (S.P.E. Cases), Jaipur on the ground that recovery of weapons had to be made. However, no recovery of weapons was made and sub-sequently he was released on bail under section 439 Cr. PC by this Court. It is further contended that the incident is said to have occurred on 23-3-1989. The investigation was conducted in the first instance by local police and subsequently transferred to CBI. Both the petitioners were not apprehended for nearly 22 months and now suddenly the prosecution agency has become active and wants to apprehend them. It is also pointed out that none of the petitioners is assigned any role at the time of incident and the only allegation is they were also in the Jeep. A blanket allegation has been made that all the occupants of the Jeep were armed. It is also pointed out that none of the petitioners is assigned any role at the time of incident and the only allegation is they were also in the Jeep. A blanket allegation has been made that all the occupants of the Jeep were armed. The C.B.I. was handed over investigation as early as 18-12-1987. It is further submitted that allegations of absconding against the accused-persons have been wrongly made and as directed by this Court affidavits controverting this allegation have been filed in this Court. In application of petitioner Parma Ram apart from his own detailed affidavit, affidavits of Bhatiwar Lal and Amar Chand who are resident of the same village have been filed. It has been stated in the affidavit of Parma Ram that he is being arrested with mala fide intention as Shri Harish Meena S.P. is annoyed with him as he appeared as witness in criminal complaint No. 42/86 filed against him which is pending in the Court of C.J.M., Makrana. In another complaint bearing No. 25/81 which also filed against some Shri Harish Meena, S.P. which is pending in the Court of C.J.M. Makrana as per summons of the Court, he went there on 20-2-89 to get the statement recorded as witness on behalf of complainant. His statement could not be recorded on account of strike and thereafter he again appeared as per the date given by the Court on 13-3-89 and got his statement recorded. It is, therefore asserted that question of his absconding does not arise. 3. Regarding accused-petitioner Ravi it is pointed out that apart from affidavits of Shri Raj Kumar Jaipal, M.L.A. Ajmer. affidavits of Ranjit Malik and Ravi Kumar have been filed. In a detailed affidavit petitioner has stated that he has passed out B.A. from Ajmer and has represented Rajasthan State in National Boxing Championship and goes for regular coaching under the auspices of Ajmer District National Boxing Association. He appeared in March, 1989 in written test for the post of Sub-Inspector Police. The test was arranged by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He has also received admission to appear in All India Civil Services Previous Examination 1989 which is conducted by U.P.S.C. New Delhi. It is also submitted that he along with Dr. He appeared in March, 1989 in written test for the post of Sub-Inspector Police. The test was arranged by Rajasthan Public Service Commission. He has also received admission to appear in All India Civil Services Previous Examination 1989 which is conducted by U.P.S.C. New Delhi. It is also submitted that he along with Dr. Raj Kumar Jaipal, M.L.A. gave a written complaint to the Prime Minister while he was at visit to Ajmer in the month of February, 1989, against harassment by Shri K.D. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent of Police (C.B.I.) Jaipur. It is also stated that he recently opened a Service Station for LML Vespa Scooters on Jaipur Road near Patel Stadium, Ajmer. The inauguration was formally done on 24-8-89 by above mentioned Dr. R.K. Jaipal which was vilely published and attended by several friends and well wishers including Government-Officers. It is also painted out that a certificate from Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Neemb, Panchayat Samiti also shows that he has been regularly going on his work and coming back in the evening from his work. It is, therefore, contended that question of absconding of petitioner Ravi also does not arise. It is further pointed out that name of Parma Ram does not appear in FIR and name of accused Mahendra Singh who has been released on bail under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code by this Court on 22-4-1988 also did not appear in FIR. This evidently is a case of over-implication and several names have been added in FIR to rope as many persons of the accused side as possible. 4. It is contended by Shri Tyagi, learned counsel for C.B I. that this is a serious offence under Section 302 IPC in which the petitioners are involved. It is contended that they could not be apprehended earlier as they were absconding. It is also submitted the petitioners were armed with deadly weapons and the weapons of the offence have to be recovered. It is further pointed out that even though the affidavit has been filed by petitioner Ravi that he appeared before Superintendent of Police (C.B I.), Jaipur for interrogation as directed by this Court, in fact he did not appear and a counter affidavit to this effect has been filed today. It is further pointed out that even though the affidavit has been filed by petitioner Ravi that he appeared before Superintendent of Police (C.B I.), Jaipur for interrogation as directed by this Court, in fact he did not appear and a counter affidavit to this effect has been filed today. It is also submitted that when the application of accused Mahendra Singh was considered by this Court, the notice of the same was erroneously given to State Prosecution Agency and therefore, C.B I. was not in position to explain the matter fully. 5. I have carefully heard the arguments advanced on both the sides. 6. The incident is said to have taken place on 23-9-87 and it is after almost long period of 22 months that the arrested of accused-petitioners is sought. The name of petitioner Parma Ram does not find place in FIR. Admittedly, accused Bhagirath Singh exhorted his son Rajendra Singh alias Raju to open fire on account of which deceased Arjun Ram died. Both these accused-persons have been released on bail even though under Section 167(2) Criminal Procedure Code . It may be emphasised when liberty of any person is deprived which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving liberty of a person must be fair, just and reasonable. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is necessary for survival of the society, The Court has to make an effort to strike a balance between the individual right to personal freedom and the investigational right of the police. One of matters for consideration before the indulgence of bail under Section 438 is granted, is to consider the antecedents of the applicant and to see whether taking advantage of anticipatory bail, he will flee from justice. No such ground has been taken while opposing the applications filed by the petitioners. Moreover the petitioners will have to submit to some restrains on their freedom. 7. In the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice I am inclined to grant bail under provisions of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code. No such ground has been taken while opposing the applications filed by the petitioners. Moreover the petitioners will have to submit to some restrains on their freedom. 7. In the facts and circumstances, and in the interest of justice I am inclined to grant bail under provisions of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code. The S.P., CBI, Jaipur/S.H.O./Arresting Officer/Investigation Officer, Police Station Makrana is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners Parma Ram s/o Daluram and Ravi s/o Bhagirath Singh in FIR No. 193/87 they may be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 7500/- (Rs. Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) each, on the following conditions : (a) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (b) that the petitioners 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; (c) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. Bail granted. *******