Judgment N.K.Sinha, J. 1. A supplementary has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 3. The petitioner seeks an order of anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Panel Code etc. Admittedly, it is a murder case and as many as three persons on the one side and two on the other had lost thoir lives. Ordinarily the court is reluctant to allow an application for anticipatory bail in a case of murder by calling for the case-diary and looking into it. However, in the present case, it appears that the case-diary of the case has been called for and received. 4. In course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner and the State referred to various decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts In support of their submissions with regard to the true scope and ambit of the provision of Section 438 (2), Cr. P. C. it is not necessary to refer to those decisions in detail. Admittedly the court has power to grant anticipatory bail in a case of murder and the decision in each case necessarily rests on the facts and circumstances of the case concerned. In the instant case it was argued that the witnesses examined in course of police investigation had named the petitioner along with other accused persons who were initially eight in numoer having assaulted the member of the other party by means of bamboo sticks and khanti. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the statement of at least two witnesses, namely, Bishwanath Chaudhary in para 13 and Shivan Prasad in para 14 of the case diary. Both while describing the occurrence as eye-witnesses stated that the petitioner was present in his factory situated near the P. O. of which he was the owner and that he was at that time empty handed. One of the witnesses went to the extent of stating that the petitioner was counselling both the parties to avoid clashing with each other. It is not necessary at this stage to deal with some of the criticism made by the learned counsel for the State, with regard to the credibility of the two witnesses on certain grounds including one that they may belong to the camp of the accused. It is not necessary at this stage to deal with some of the criticism made by the learned counsel for the State, with regard to the credibility of the two witnesses on certain grounds including one that they may belong to the camp of the accused. It is significant to note that out of eight accused persons in this case one is already dead having received injuries in the course of the same occurrence and the remaining 6 have already been released on regular bail by different Benches of this Court. Learned counsel for the State took the position that this petitioner who had succeded in evading arrest by the police should not be considered entitled to the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case in its totality and not foregetting the statement of some witnesses contained in paras 13 and 14 of the case diary, I consider it to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. The application is accordingly allowed and the petitioner, namely, Jagat Mahto in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court concerned with ten days from today, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City in connection with Alamganj P. S. Case No. 4/94 under Sections 147,148, 307 and 302, IPC. Subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.