ORDER S.K. Chawla, J. -- 1. This is a revision petition by a private party challenging bail order of Additional Sessions Judge granting bail in a murder case. 2. On 23.8.1992, at about 11.00 a.m. one Madho Singh lodged a report at Panihar Police Station in Gwalior district that on that date at about 7.00 a.m., in village Piproli, his elder brother deceased Sobran Singh was grazing cattle, when six persons came armed with weapons to assault him. These six persons were Ramnath Singh, Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh, who were armed with Pharsas, Bhattu Singh armed with a lathi and Amar Singh and Vishal Singh armed with guns. Seeing them approaching, both informant Madho Singh as also deceased Saba ran Singh started to flee. But Sobaran Singh could not run away and was overtaken by the assailants. Ramnath Singh then threw down Sobaran Singh and started to beat him with lathi and pharsa. Amar Singh and Vishal Singh fired at informant Madho Singh but the shots missed him. Continuing with his report, informant Madho Singh further got it recorded that after half an hour he came back to his brother deceased Sobaran Singh. Sobaran Singh was lying dead. Sobaran Singh had Pharsa injuries on throat, 4ead and both thighs, which were all bleeding. The report also stated that after sometime, Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh also came, who saw the assailants running away in the direction of the village and the informant also told them about the incident. Previously on 21.8.1992, the Informant had a quarrel with Ramnath Singh and his son over grazing of cattle. It was on account of that enmity that the assailants had come in concert and had killed his brother Sobaran Singh by assaulting him with lathi and Pharsas. The police registered a case of murder of deceased Sobaran Singh and attempted murder of informant Madho Singh under sections 302, 307, 147, 148 and 149. IPC. 3. Two applications for bail made separately by Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh were allowed by Shri R.N.S. Chouhan, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior by a common order dated 20.11.1992. Aggrieved by that order, informant Madho Singh has filed this revision petition, in which these accused persons are respondents, besides the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is also a respondent. It may be mentioned here that Amar Singh was granted bail on 9.11.1992 by the Court of Sessions. Aggrieved by that order, informant Madho Singh has filed this revision petition, in which these accused persons are respondents, besides the State of Madhya Pradesh, which is also a respondent. It may be mentioned here that Amar Singh was granted bail on 9.11.1992 by the Court of Sessions. Vishal Singh has also been granted bail on 5.1.1993 by the order of the Court of Sessions. Bhattu Singh alias Bharat Singh has been granted bail by the order of the High Court dated 22.1.93. Ramnath Singh has not so far even made an application for bail. 4. It may be appropriate at this stage to notice, on the basis of post-mortem report, that deceased Sobran Singh had received as many as nine injuries, all of them incised, on his head, throatand both thighs. All those injuries were deep-cut injuries, which had resulted in instantaneous death of Sobran Singh at the spot. 5. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner in support of this revision petition that learned Additional Sessions Judge exercised his discretion most improperly to grant bail to accused/respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh. On the other hand, Shri J.P. Gupta, appearing for these respondents, argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering proper material, had exercised a discretion in granting bail and there was no ground to interfere with the said discretionary order. It was also emphasized that bail having been already granted, very cogent and overwhelming reasons would be necessary for canceling the bail. Reliance was placed on observations contained in the decisions: Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi in AIR 1978 SC 961 and Bhagirath Singh v. State of Gujrat in AIR 1984 SC 372 . It was also argued that power to grant bail has not to be exercised as if punishment before trial was being imposed. The only material considerations at the time of considering a bail application should be, whether in the event of bail being granted, the accused would readily be available for his trial and whether he was likely to abuse his liberty by tampering with evidence. Reference was again made to observations of the Supreme Court in support of this contention in the case of Bhagirath Singh (supra). It was also pointed out that this was not a revision by the State but by a private party. Reference was again made to observations of the Supreme Court in support of this contention in the case of Bhagirath Singh (supra). It was also pointed out that this was not a revision by the State but by a private party. It was also faintly urged that bail order being interlocutory order, the present revision was not maintainable. 6. A perusal of the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge would show that he found justification to grant bail mainly because of the contents of the FIR, which have already been set out elaborately in paragraph 2 of this order. In this connection it was observed by learned Additional Sessions Judge that it was not mentioned in the FIR by what weapons respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh had assaulted the deceased and on what parts of his body. The FIR further stated that witnesses Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh had also come and had seen the accused persons running away and to them informant Madho Singh had disclosed the incident. This indicated that they were not eye witnesses and yet they had given statement as eye witnesses in their police statements. Informant Madho Singh had improved upon his version in the FIR by subsequently making statement to the police, in which particular acts of assault were ascribed by him to each of the accused persons. It was also observed in the impugned order that Ram Nath Singh was the only person, who was ascribed a specific role in assault on the deceased in the FIR. Excepting him, there was no mention about specific role played by other accused persons in the FIR. It was, therefore, proper, the impugned order reasoned, that bail should be granted to respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh. 7. In the context of the circumstance that deceased Sobran Singh had received nine injuries, all of them incised, even a look at the FIR leaves very little for imagination to think that respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh had actually participated in the murderous assault on the deceased. Like Ramnath Singh, they too were armed with Pharsas and had pursued and overtaken the deceased. It is noteworthy that no other alleged pursuer was similarly armed with Pharsa. Like Ramnath Singh, they too were armed with Pharsas and had pursued and overtaken the deceased. It is noteworthy that no other alleged pursuer was similarly armed with Pharsa. At this stage it is not any more possible to suggest that not one or some, but all the nine Pharsa injuries were inflicted by Ramnath Singh alone then to suggest that respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh after being armed with Pharsas and pursuing and overtaking the deceased, simply stood by and for some divine reason, refused to use their weapons. These are matters which should best be left for decision at the trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge wrongly tried to distinguish the case of these respondents from the case of Ramnath Singh. If there was any difference between them, the difference was no more than between tweed-ledum and tweed-ledee. It was also wrong on the part of learned Additional Sessions Judge to have surmised that Gyan Singh and Jardan Singh could not be eye-witnesses, who had allegedly seen these respondents, like Ramnath Singh, actually using Pharsas on the deceased. It may be that from the point of view of informant Madho Singh, these witnesses might not have seen the actual assault. But the fact whether they saw, what they said they saw, could best be said by them alone and not by a third person like the informant. The informant might have told them about the incident. A person may voluntarily tell about the incident to some others, even when the latter had also seen the incident. These are matters which should properly be left to be determined at the trial. It is clear that learned Additional Sessions Judge by resorting to distortions and twisted reasoning, most improperly exercised the discretion to release the respondents on bail. The impugned order, in the circumstances, granting bail deserves to be set aside. . 8. Not much turns on the fact that Amar Singh and Vishal Singh have been granted bail. They were said to be armed with guns and admittedly no fire-arm injury was caused either to the deceased or to the informant. It does not also make much difference if Bhatta Singh alias Bharat Singh has also been granted bail by the order of this Court: He was said to be armed with a lathi and no lathi injuries were received either by the deceased or the informant. 9. It does not also make much difference if Bhatta Singh alias Bharat Singh has also been granted bail by the order of this Court: He was said to be armed with a lathi and no lathi injuries were received either by the deceased or the informant. 9. Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, sought to stress in his argument that the only material considerations at the time of deciding a bail application should be, whether in the event of bail being granted the accused would readily be available for his trial and whether he was likely to abuse his liberty. Precisely for these considerations, it is not considered proper to release those accused on bail against whom there may be strong material about their being the principal offenders in the commission of murder. If bail is given even in such cases, then there can never be any case where bail might be refused, though not as a measure of punishment but even on the considerations above mentioned. 10. It was pointed out by Shri J.P. Gupta that this revision petition has not been filed by the State, which should have felt aggrieved, but was filed by a private party. This argument goes not so much to the tenability of the application as to the weight to be given to the revision petition. It may be mentioned here that the Government counsel on behalf of the State also supported the present revision. There is also nothing to prevent this Court from acting suo motu in such kind of revision petition. 11. It was faintly and even apologetically argued that a bail order is an interlocutory order and therefore no revision is entertain-able in view of the bar contained in section 397 (2) Cr.P.C. Shri J.P. Gupta also placed reliance on a Single Bench decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Mansingh and another, reported in 1979 CrLR (MP) 128. It is stated in that decision itself that this kind of objection is very technical and also that it could not be contended that the High Court is powerless, which can act either under section 439 (2) or section 482 Cr.P.C. Suffice to say that the question whether bail order is an interlocutory order does not need to be decided in the present petition. 12. 12. Before concluding, it is proper to say that nothing stated in this order should be taken to be expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case of any of the accused persons. It is further made clear that nothing stated in this order shall influence the trial Court in the ultimate decision of the case. 13. The impugned order dated 20.11.1992 of Shri R.N.S. Chouhan, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior cannot be allowed to stand. Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order directing bail to be given to respondents Ratan Singh and Mitta Singh, is hereby set aside.