JUDGMENT 1. - This is fourth application of accused petitioner Angrej Singh, who is being tried by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, for an offence under section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No. 63/87. The first application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 539/88, which was not pressed at that stage on 1-7-88. The second bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 110/89 was dismissed as withdrawn. The third bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 292/89 was granted and the petitioner was ordered to be released on interim bail to enable him to participate in the marriage of his brother Teja Singh, which was to be performed on 19-2-89. 2. In this application, the first contention was that the prosecution was playing dilatory tactics. On the last date of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to produce certified copies of order sheets of the trial court to satisfy this Court that the prosecution was playing dilatory tactics. Learned counsel for the petitioner very frankly and fairly concedes that it is not possible to say that prosecution has adopted any dilatory tactics in the matter. 3. On merits, it is submitted that the FIR was registered on the basis of a dying declaration of the deceased Paramjeet Kaur recorded by Sub-Inspector Kishan Lal on 2-5-87 at 5.20 p.m. It is submitted that prior to the recording of this dying declaration, the deceased is said to have been in an unconscious state yet PW 2 Bakhtawar Singh is said to have met PW 3 Nakshtra Singh on that very day at 10-11 noon and at that time, Bakhtawar Singh told him that Paramjeet was poisoned. He submits that this shows that the prosecution witnesses have fabricated a false case. 4. Learned P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that any observation by this Court at this stage may prejudice the trial of the case. Shri Kishan Singh and Shri Puran Mal Magistrate, who are said to have recorded the two dying declarations of the deceased, are yet to be examined and, therefore, it would not be proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail at this stage. 5. Shri Kishan Singh and Shri Puran Mal Magistrate, who are said to have recorded the two dying declarations of the deceased, are yet to be examined and, therefore, it would not be proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail at this stage. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no possibility of the accused petitioner winning over the Sub-Inspector or for that matter Shri Puran Mal and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused petitioner may be enlarged on bail, who has been behind bars for almost more than two years. 6. I have considered the circumstances of the case. Without commenting anything upon the merits of the case, deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, it is ordered that if the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- and two surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 5000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Session Judge, Raisinghnagar, for appearance in his court on the next date fixed and on all other dates, which may be fixed, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail provided he is not wanted in any other case. The application is disposed of, accordingly.Bail granted. *******