V. B. Bansal, J. ( 1 ) RAM Kishan and Paras Ram have prayed for beingreleased on bail in FIR No. 242/91, P. S. Mehrauli under Secs. 302/307/147148/34 IPC. ( 2 ) THERE was an incident at about 11. 30 a. m. on 4/08/1991infornt of House No. 260/3, village Chhatarpur within the jurisdiction of P. S. Mehrauli. Case was registered on the statement of Hem Chand S/o Mangatram. ( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution story has been that on that day healongwith his father Mangat Ram and brother Kanhayalal and Rati Ramtook meals in the house and at about 11. 30 a. m. he along with his brotherrati Ram came out of the house and noticed that Ukiliptus (ballies) whichthey had kept outside their house had rolled down. He noticed Tara Chand,ram Singh and Raj Kumar present at their shop and an enquiry was madefrom them as to who had thrown the said Ballies on the road. The aforesaidpersons started giving abuses and asked the complainant and his brother as towhy they were not removing the same. Hem Chand made a request to themnot to give abuses upon which both Tara Chand and Ram Singh broughtlathis from their shop while Raj Kumar brought iron rod. Tara Chandand Raj Kumar gave injuries to Hem Chand while Ram Singh gavelathi blows to Rati Ram. Alarm was raised by Rati Ram upon whichkanhayalal and Mangat Ram came. In the meantime Prahlad came havinga bamboo stick while Paras Ram was having a lathi and Ram Kishan camewith an iron Palta brought from the shop. At that moment Mawasi alsocame having an iron pipe with him and gave exhortation to teach them lessonand to kill them. Tara Chand snatched the Palta from the hand of Ramkishan and used the same for inflicting injuries to Kanhayalal and Mangatram while Prahlad gave lathi blow to Mangat Ram and Paras Ram gave lathiblow to Kanhayalal. Ram Kishan inflicted lathi blow to Hem Chand andhereafter they escaped. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there wasno pre-meditation and the incident took place suddenly. He has furthersubmitted that in fact the incident started when Rati Ram and Hem Chandhad a talk with Tara Chand, Ram Singh and Raj Kumar and other accusedjoined subsequently. Ram Kishan inflicted lathi blow to Hem Chand andhereafter they escaped. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there wasno pre-meditation and the incident took place suddenly. He has furthersubmitted that in fact the incident started when Rati Ram and Hem Chandhad a talk with Tara Chand, Ram Singh and Raj Kumar and other accusedjoined subsequently. He has further submitted that Raj Kumar, Paras Ram,ram Singh, Mawasi arid Prahlad Singh from the side of the accused personsalso sustained injuries and there is no explanation from the side of the prosecution as to how they had sustained injuries. He has further submitted thatdifferent persons could be responsible for their individual act and that itcannot be said that the petitioners are in any way connected with the death ofmangat Ram. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent has opposed this applicationand submitted that all the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and itwas in pursuance of their common object that injuries were inflicted to Hemchand, Rati Ram and Kanhayalal resulting into the death of Mangatram. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the application may bedismissed. ( 6 ) I have given may thoughtful consideration to all these submissionsand have also perused the MLCs and the statements of the eye-witnesses, ( 7 ) A perusal of the statements of the eye witnesses makes it abundantly clear that Mawasi gave exhortation to his companions including thepetitioner to teach them a lesson of entering into a quarrel and they shouldalso be killed. It is only thereafter that injuries were inflicted to Mangat Ramby Tara Chand and Prahlad and the post-mortem examination in respect ofmangat Ram clearly shows that death was due to result of head injuries whichwas anti-mortem in nature can be produced by blunt force and sufficient tocause death in the ordinary course of nature. It is, thus, clear that injuriesto Mangat Ram have been inflicted after the giving of two exhortations whenthe petitioners also participated and inflicted injuries to Kanhaya Lal andhem Chand. There is no doubt that there are injuries to persons on the side ofthe accused persons which are however, simple in nature. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING all the facts, I am clearly of the view that no case ismade out for bail. ( 9 ) AS a result the application stands dismissed.