JUDGMENT 1. - 16 petitioners in the two bail applications have been arrested in the common riots which took place in Kumber in June, 1992. On 6.6.1992, 11 persons died while several persons received injuries. 30 persons were arrested on the spot. Some more persons were arrested after a couple of days. The manner in which huts were burnt and people were murdered left the country concerned with the law and order situation. The petitioners are those who were arrested on 6.6.1992 itself. 2. The sub Inspector, Rajkumar, himself lodged the report about the incident at the Police Station, Kumher on 6.6.1992 at 5.15 p.m. stating that 300 strong police party was posted in Kumher on 6.6.1992 and at 2.00 p.m. about 5 to 6 thousand persons of a particular community came armed with dangerous weapons and guns and inspite of the efforts of the police to stop them they fired and gave beating and could not be restrained ever after releasing tear gas. The police had to do lathicharge also. The crowd also fired. The names of several persons were mentioned in the FIR who were injured and some of them who were dead. About 30 persons were named as accused in the FIR and out of the present petitioners, four petitioners, namely Maharaj Singh, Amar Singh, Ramkhiladi and Digamber, have not been named in the FIR. These four persons were arrested on 8.6.1992 while the others were arrested on 6.6.1992. They were booked under Section 107/151, with the remarks that they were not able to furnish sureties. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the persons who were arrested on 6.6.1992 were arrested at 2.00 p.m. before the incident and they were all unarmed, and have been falsely made accused in the case. For Amar Singh, it is contended that he is an army person. He came to the village on leave and when he was about to return, the incident occured, and he has been made accused. For Maharaj Singh, it is contended that he him self received injuries in the incident which took place on 3.6.1992, on which date it was the other party who had caused the destruction in the village. It is also contended that explosive substance was recovered from the other side and there is no recovery of explosive substance from the petitioners side. It is also contended that explosive substance was recovered from the other side and there is no recovery of explosive substance from the petitioners side. It is also contended that police party or the other party has not received any injuries by gun shot and the injuries are also by sharp and blunt weapons. Another fact pointed out is that the FIR in the case reached the Magistrate after a delay of about 8 days on 15.6.1992. 4. The learned counsel for the CBI has contended that the CBI started investigation from 29.6.1992 and so far 38 witnesses have been examined. He has emphasised that in this grusome crime 11 persons were murdered and several others received injuries, but so far the CBI has not been able to collect material to show the involvement of these persons, who are petitioners before me. On their own admission, the CBI requires much more time for investigating the case and the accused are already in custody for about one month and 20 days. Some of the witnesses who have examined so far have named other persons and not the petitioners. It cannot be said what would come in the further investigation of the case. But considering the present situation, these petitioners can be released on bail, on appropriate conditions. 5. The petitioners, Amar Singh, Ramkhiladi, Umashankar, Digamber, Karanveer Singh, Keshav Deo, Maharaj Singh, Mangilal, Ram Singh, Braj Behari, Rambharose, Mooli Singh, Babulal, Ghasita, Harehandi, Mukut shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the amount of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance during the course of trial on all dates of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so also on the following conditions: (a) that they shall not carry any weapon with them, (b) they shall not move about in group of more than three persons, (c) they shall not threaten, or influence the witnesses, likely to be interrogated during investigation or subsequently during trial. *******