JUDGMENT 1. - This is a second bail application moved by Dr. Raj Kumar Jaipal for being released on bail, the first bail application No. 24/93 having been dismissed by this Court on February 5, 1993. While dismissing the aforesaid bail application this Court had directed the Sessions Judge to proceed with the trial of the case and to examine the doctor and Smt. Ghisi Bai as first witnesses on behalf of the prosecution. 2. Not only the doctor have been examined, but Smt. Ghisi Bai has also been examined as PW. 6. When the present bail application came up for consideration before this Court on July 29, 1993 looking to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel this Court had directed the Sessions Judge to make the inspection of the site in the presence of the parties and the doctor who was incharge of the ward on September 12,1992, if he is available, or if he is not available, in the presence of any of his assistants who might be assisting him on that date. A specific direction was given to inspect the ward in the night as the occurrence is said to have taken place in the night and so far as the accused-petitioner is concerned, it was not the case of the prosecution that he had fired at the deceased, but the allegation against him is that he was standing at the main gate of the ward which opens in the verandah. The present bail application arises out of the incident which took place in the right intervening September 11 and 12, 1992 at about 2 or 2.30 a.m. An incident had also taken place on September 5, 1992 in which Madan Singh had received injuries by fire-arm on his right pelvic region and it was for the treatment of the aforesaid injury that he was an indoor patient in the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer. So far as the earlier case under Section 11 Indian Penal Code is concerned, Rajkumar has already been released on bail and the allegation against him in the earlier case was under Section 11 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code. 3. So far as the earlier case under Section 11 Indian Penal Code is concerned, Rajkumar has already been released on bail and the allegation against him in the earlier case was under Section 11 read with 120-B Indian Penal Code. 3. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner in support of this bail application that the accused-petitioner was arrested on September 16, 1992 and there are 60 witnesses in the calendar of witnesses out of whom only six witnesses have been examined so far and there are 54 witnesses who remain yet to be examined. Investigation, commitment and trial has already taken about a year and looking to the number of witnesses remaining to be examined, there is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in another a year and therefore the accused-petitioner in a case of present nature should be released on bail, more so, when it is admitted by Smt. Ghisi PW. 6 that deceased Madan Singh was involved in a number of criminal cases including murder cases and he was publishing news in his daily news paper 'Lehron Ki Barkha' against many others. Learned Counsel contends that because in respect of the incident dated September 5, 1992 deceased had lodged a report in which the accused petitioner was also one of the accused, the possibility cannot be excluded that he might have had an impression that the accused-petitioner was responsible for the incident which took place in the night intervening September 11/12, 1992 and therefore the accused-petitioner might have been named. Learned Counsel contends that dying declaration was recorded after 4 a.m. on that date and there were independent witnesses, moreso, Shambhu Dayal Compounder and Sumer Singh Police Constable and Sumer Singh in his statement recorded under Section 11 Criminal Procedure Code said that he had chased the persons who were running away but he could not identify them. Both the deceased and his mother Ghisi did not disclose the names of the assailants to them in so far as the incident of that date is concerned. 4. Both the deceased and his mother Ghisi did not disclose the names of the assailants to them in so far as the incident of that date is concerned. 4. It was further contended by the learned Counsel that the prosecution never came out with a case that deceased Madanlal who was undergoing treatment in the hospital had been shifted from bed No. 1 to bed No. 2 and for the first time the story of shifting the bed was made out in the trial and even if that case is relied upon, that the deceased while still alive was shifted to bed No. 2, as per inspection note, the learned Sessions Judge has said that there was a piller in between the main gate of the ward which opens in the verandah and the bed No. 2 and therefore the deceased could not have identified the accused petitioner, moreso, when as per the case of the prosecution itself, the light of the verandah was off and it was dark there. Learned Counsel, therefore, contends that even Smt. Ghisi Bai in her statement has stated that she had not talked to the accused-petitioner prior to the occurrence. Learned Public Prosecutor who is assisted by Mr. R. Yadav, learned Counsel for the complainant has contended that these are the questions of facts which depend upon the appreciation of evidence and it is not the stage where this Court should go into these questions. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that in a case of present nature where a dare-devil act was done, and the owner, publisher, author, editor of Hindi daily 'Lehron ki Barkha' was done to death, the bail should not be granted, as the grant of bail is likely to affect the media which is important for survival of democracy. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that from the medical evidence which has been recorded by the learned trial Court, there can be no dispute, that the deceased did not die as a result of injuries alleged caused to him in the night intervening September 11/12, 1992 and the doctor has said that the deceased died as a result of injuries received by him on September 5, 1992. Learned Counsel contends that therefore it is not a case under Section 11 or Section 11 Indian Penal Code and at best it may be a case under Section 11 or Section 11 Indian Penal Code and so far as the accused-petitioner is concerned prima facie no case is made out against him. 6. I would not like to go into the merits of the case and various arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor who is assisted by the learned Counsel for the complainant. I would also not like to so into the question, as stated by the doctor, whether the death of the deceased was as a result of the injuries received by him on September 5, 1992 or in the night intervening September 11/12, 1992 and whether or not the death of the deceased was accelerated by the injuries received by the deceased in the night intervening September 11/12, 1992. Even assuming, though not accepting, that it may be a case under Section 11 Indian Penal Code, I would have declined to have exercised my discretion to grant bail to the accused-petitioner where an assault was made on a journalist who was undergoing treatment in the hospital for his injuries received by him on September 5, 1992, i.e. five or six days earlier to the present incident. But in this case serious dispute has been raised about the identity of the accused-petitioner whether he could have been identified while standing in the verandah in the night intervening September 11/12, 1992, moreso, from bed No. 2 on which the deceased was shifted, moreso when there was no light in the verandah as per the case of the prosecution. Learned Sessions Judge has inspected the site and has said that if a patient is lying on bed No. 2 and if one is standing at the main gate in the verandah, the person standing in the gate and verandah will not be visible. Learned Sessions Judge said that he had inspected the site after having the light on and off. Learned Sessions Judge said that he had inspected the site after having the light on and off. Not only this, two independent witnesses, namely Shambhu Dayal Compounder and Sumer Singh Constable have categorically stated that neither the deceased nor Smt. Ghisi had disclosed to them about the accused-petitioner and had not named the assailants.Not only this, as said above the accused-petitioner is in custody since September 16, 1992 almost a year and only six witnesses out of the calendar of 60, have been examined so far. There cannot be and does not appear to be any possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. Taking into consideration all the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, I am inclined to release the accused-petitioner on bail. 7. Before parting, I would like to say that the people should not think that they can influence the Courts by sending anonymous and signed letters. I have received many anonymous and signed letters stating that I have been influenced by the Ministers and there were other allegations also. Those letters have not been retained. I may say that this Court is (Illegible) by any anonymous or named letters. But I am not granting bail to the accused-petitioner as a result of those letters, but the bail is being granted on the grounds aforesaid. 8. Consequently, I allow this bail application and direct that the accused-petitioner Dr. Raj Kumar Jaipal shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- with two sureties each in the amount of Rs. 6,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance in that Court or any other Court in which he is required to appear on all dates of hearing and as and when required to do so. I further direct that the condition of the release of the accused-petitioner on bail will be that he will not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and will not delay the trial of the case.Bail Application allowed. *******