ORDER K.K. Varma, J.-l, Remaining arguments were heard and also arguments in Misc. Criminal Case No. 177/90 (Mangal Singh alias Mango v. State) second bail application of co accused, were also heard. The following order shall dispose of both the bail applications. 2. Applicant Sobran Singh son of Bal Mukand of Narsinghpur (P.S. Noorabad). who is the applicant in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1637/89, and Mangal Singh alias Mango S/o Gopal Singh of Pahavali, P.S. Sumavali, Shrilal S/o Shankar Jatav of Pahavali, P.S. Sumvali, Punjab Singh S/o Kok Singh of Pahavali, P.S. Sumavali and Mangalia S/o Lajjaram of Pokhan Singh-Ka-Pura, Mauza Vindwa, Police Civil Lines, Morena, have been arrested in Crime No. 76/89, P.S. Noorabad, registred under sections 302/34 and 120-B IPC, arising out of the murder of applicant Sobaran Singh's cousin Rambabu of Narsinghpur, P.S. Noorabad. 3. There is evidence that applicant Sobaran Singh and many others were going in a tractor and its trolley, from Morena towards Narsinghpur, Rambabu was driving the tractor. He was shot some 1-1/2 miles from the village of Jarara. Applicant Sobaran Singh was then in the trolley. Three persons who had been sitting on the mud-guards of the tractor jumped off and made good their escape. There is evidence that one of the three persons who had run away after the shot was fired had sported a beard. It was so, the witnesses say, the bearded man had shot at and injured Rambabu. There is evidence that before the tractor had left the transport barrier in the town of Morena, applicant Sobarn Singh got down from the Tractor and then he had accosted the aforementioned three persons and then those three persons had taken their seats on the mud-guards. There is also evidence to show that after Rambabu had been shot, he had accused applicant Sobaran Singh for having a design on his (Rambabu's) life. 4. The learned Dy. Government Advocate says that accused Punjab Singh of Pahavali is, according to the police, the bearded man who had shot at and injurned Rambabu. The aforementioned Punjab Singh, co-accused Shrilal and applicant Mangal Singh alias Mango belong to the village of pahavali. As observed by me in my earlier order dated 4-12-1989 by which applicant Mangnl Singh's first application Was rejected, applicant Mangal Singh. The aforementioned Punjab Singh, co-accused Shrilal and applicant Mangal Singh alias Mango belong to the village of pahavali. As observed by me in my earlier order dated 4-12-1989 by which applicant Mangnl Singh's first application Was rejected, applicant Mangal Singh. Punjab Singh and Shrilal Jatav came to the house of Rameshwar Gujar, applicant Mangal Singh's brother-in-law, along with three or four persons. There he made an extra-judicial-confession to the effect that he, Panjab Singh and Shrilal Jatav had killed Rambabu Gujar by shooting him at the instance of co-accused Sobaran and Mangal Gujar of Vindwa. It was also pointed out that Mangal Singh of Sahrana told the police that applicant Mangal Singh, Punjab Singh, Shrilal Jatav and Mangalia Gujar came to his house on 1-8-89 and there Punjab Singh had taken out a Katta and said that Rambabu Gujar would be killed. 5. Applicant Mangal Singh's first cousin, Fateh Singh of Pahavali, told the police that 5 or 6 days before, he had heard about Rambabu's death by shooting, he had seen his cousin applicant Mangal Singh, Sobaran Singh and Mangalia on the bank of his village river. 6. The applicants learned counsel have filed in Misc. Criminal Case No. 177/90 photostat copies of an application dated 12-12-89 purporting to be from Rajkumar Singh s/o Bharat Singh and an undated application. purporting to be to bear the thumb impression of the aforementioned Fateh Singh and an affidavit dated 12-12-89 of Rajkumar Singh and an affidavit dated 15-12-89 of aforementioned Fateh Singh. In addition, the applicants have filed the affidavits of Lajjaram, and Chandansingh, who used thumb impressions and Ramakhtyar in which they say that first-informant Ramcharan Singh, who was in the tractor, at the time of the occurrence, knew applicant Mangal Singh from before the occurrence because applicant Mangalia’s father's sister's son Santoshi is Samdhi of first informant Ramcharan Singh. 7. The aforementioned affidavit of Rajkumar Singh and Fateh Singh were given after a week of the rejection of the first bail application of applicant Mangal Singh. I do not express any view whether or not affidavits are genuine because the witnesses are likely to put into the witness box during the trial. 7. The aforementioned affidavit of Rajkumar Singh and Fateh Singh were given after a week of the rejection of the first bail application of applicant Mangal Singh. I do not express any view whether or not affidavits are genuine because the witnesses are likely to put into the witness box during the trial. However, since the affidavits have been filed and a question has arisen how to use such affidavits in considering a bail application, I make the following observations: "The affidavits were given nearly four months after the statements were given to the police. There is nothing in the affidavits to show when and through whom the deponents came to know what the police have said that they have said to them Another thing that leaps to the eye is that the swearing in of the affidavits on stamp papers and on payment of fee to the notary and the writing charges etc. must have cost quite some money. There is nothing in the affidavits to show why and how these two depononts came to the notary on the same date arid got the affidavits". 8. In the light of the aforementioned circumstances, it would be an abuse of the process of the Court to allow such affidavits to be considered as rebuttal of the statements recorded by the police. I, therefore, ignore these affidavits. 9. Taking a cumulative view of the evidence against the applicants, the manner, the circumstances and the weapon used for the killing, I reject the bail applications of Sobaran Singh and Mangal Singh alias Mango.