JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C, the earlier one was rejected by this Court on 16.10.90 with a direction to the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months. The application has been filed by the petitioner on a ground, which is of general importance, that unless he is granted indulgence of bail, he cannot find out and procure the defence witnesses to lead evidence in rebuttal to the prosecution evidence to the effect that he had made oral confession before a Panchayat of the community members of different villages. 2. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, some facts of the case are necessary to be narrated. 3. The petitioner is facing trial under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife. The report of the incident has been lodged by Khursheed, S/o Rehman at Police Station Gordhan, District Bharatpur on July 24, 1990. The informant is the real brother of the deceased. 4. It is noteworthy that in the case there is no direct evidence to connect the accused with the crime. An important piece of evidence, on which the prosecution case perhaps, mainly hinges, is the alleged oral extrajudicial confession made by the accused petitioner in the Panchayat of the community members of different villages. Some persecution witnesses have testified in the Trial Court that the petitioner had made such confession of committing murder of his wife in the said Panchayat. It is also noteworthy that the Trial Court has recorded the entire prosecution evidence and the statement of the accused petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has also been recorded. The case is now fixed for leading defence evidence. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he (petitioner) is in the custody since the lodging of the report and is unable to find out the names of the witnesses and produce them or summon them through the assistance of Court unless and until he is given an opportunity to go in the village/villages to find out the persons who had attended the said Panchayat of the community members of different villages. The petitioner is denying vehemently that he had made any such oral confession. The petitioner is denying vehemently that he had made any such oral confession. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as per prosecution case in the petitioner comes to know the names of those persons who actually attended the said Panchayat, he cannot lead evidence in defence. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further urged that the petitioner is facing trial for serious charge under Section 302 IPC, and if he does not get a proper opportunity to lead evidence in defence, his case may be seriously prejudiced. The learned Counsel also argued that till a finding of guilt is recorded an accused is presumed to be innocent and the facts of this case are peculiar in nature as such, he should be granted bail or interim bail so that he may get an opportunity to arrange his proper defence. The learned Counsel has placed reliance on Emperor v. H.L. Huchinson A.I.R. 1931 All. 356 , in which the High Court has observed as under: "...An accused person is presumed under the law to be innocent till his guilt is proved. As a presumably innocent person he is centitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. It goes without saying that an accused person, if he enjoys freedom, will be in a such better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. One of the complaints made by the applicants in this case is that their letters sent form custody have been opened and inspected and censored and therefore they were not in a position to conduct their defence with the aid of such friends as may be outside the prison. An I have said, it is obvious that a presumably innocent person should have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence. 7. The learned Counsel further relies on Emperor v. Rani Abhairaj Kunwar A.I.R. 1940 Oudh 8. The following observation has been taken by the High Court: "All the important witnesses for the prosecution have already been examined and if they are witnesses of the type who are prepared to change their statements on receipt of a few hundred rupees, they will do so whether the Raj Mata and Kunwar Sahib are on bail or are the lock-up. If the accused are in the lock-up there is no doubt that they have got a host of people looking after the case who are just as capable of tampering with the evidence as the accused themselves. It is my duty to see that both sides are not hampered. I must see that the Crown does not get a free hand and the accused are locked up or are hampered in their defence simply on the ground that it is alleged or feared that they will tamper with the evidence. If I had been satisfied that they would tamper with the evidence, I would have been the last person to grant bail in a case of this nature. Mr. Haider Husain on behalf of the accused has strongly urged that if they are sent to jail they will not be able to defend the case or arrange for money for their defence. The complainant, Rani Subhadra Devi, her father and brother who remain to be examined in the case, certainly cannot be tampered with by the accused persons, and if there are any other witnesses they are only formal. There is no suggestion on behalf of the Crown that they will abscond. 8. The learned Counsel further submits that it should also be the anxiety of the Court that an accused gets a proper opportunity to lead his defence evidence. The various provisions contained in Cr.P.C. to safeguard the interest of the accused also indicate that an accused should get a proper opportunity to defend himself. The learned Counsel submits that proper opportunity to lead defence evidence includes an opportunity to find out the witness/witnesses who can, if produced, may prove his innocence. The learned Counsel submits that such approach by a Court of law will be in consonance with justice and fair play enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel contends that there is none else in the family of the petitioner who can make efforts to find out the witnesses to be examined in the defence. 9. The learned Counsel contends that there is none else in the family of the petitioner who can make efforts to find out the witnesses to be examined in the defence. 9. On the other hand, the learned P.P. submits that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 302 IPC for committing murder of his wife, and he cannot claim bail as to right and that there is prima facie evidence against him of connect him with the guilt of murder which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The learned P.P. further submits, that though there may not be any apprehension now that the petitioner shall tamper with the prosecution evidence, if enlarged on bail, as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, but still he cannot be granted bail on the ground that he has to arrange for his defence. 10. I have given my careful consideration to the above rival submissions made before me. This case has come peculiar facts. The prosecution case mainly rests on the alleged extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before a Panchayat of the community members of different villages. If this evidence is relied upon by the Court, the petitioner may be convicted under the charge of murder. On the contrary, if the accused can show by leading evidence that he did not make any such confession before the Pahchayat, then possibility of his acquittal cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in the present case, the defence evidence is of vital importance. 11. The petitioner is in Jail since the registration of the case against him. The alleged Panchayat is said to be of the community members of different villages. The petitioner has right to produce such persons who had attended the said Panchayat to show that he had not made any such confession as alleged by the prosecution. There is no reason to dis-believe the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that for the reasons stated by him. The petitioner is not in a position to give the names of those persons and examine them in defence until he is granted an opportunity to find out the names of these persons who had attended in the said Panchayat.; 12. The petitioner is not in a position to give the names of those persons and examine them in defence until he is granted an opportunity to find out the names of these persons who had attended in the said Panchayat.; 12. Keeping in view the special circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the interest of the petitioner should be protected and he should be given full opportunity to lead his evidence in defence. The interest of the petitioner shall stand protected if he is granted an interim bail for period of four weeks to enable him to find out the names of those persons who had attended in the said Panchayat and may, if he so chases, appear in defence. 13. It is, therefore directed that the petitioner shall be released on interim bail for a period of four weeks from April 8, 1991 to May 7, 1991, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two surities in the sum of Rs. 10.000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with a stipulation to surrender himself before the Trial Court on May 8, 1991. The petitioner shall be free to submit the list of defence witnesses, on or before 8th May, 1991 to be examined by him.Interim Bail Granted. *******