V. B. BANSAL, J. ( 1 ). Jai Bhagwan has moved this application under Section 438 read with Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the. code ) for his release in anticipation of his arrest for offence under Section 302,307,452 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code in FIR No. 377/93, Police Station Timarpur. ( 2 ). An incident took place at about 6. 00 am. on 23. 11. 1993 at plot No. l47, Garhi B rari, near Burari Masjid, Burari, Delhi, in which two persons, viz. Kamil son of Sahid; and Wahid Ali son of Nabhi Baksh lost their lives while Sajjid Ahmed son of Wahid Ahmed sustained injuries. FIR was recorded on the statement of Aneez Ahmed son of Shri Wahid Ahmed resident of Village Garhi Burari, Burari, Delhi. According to this statement Aneez Ahmed was aged about 21 years and a student of XIIth Class. On that date he alongwith his father Wahid Ahmed, brother Sajeed Ali, cousin brother Kamil, Uncle Shahid Ahmed, mother Kaneeza Begum and grand-mother was present at their plot and about 6. 00 am. Ram Kishore, Alimuddin @ Bona, Ramphal Pradhan and his son Pinto, residents of Village Burari, known to him earlier, came at the plot. he went on to state that Ramphal Pradhan and Pinto stood outside the plot while Ram Kishore enquired from his father Wahid Ahmed as to how he dared to come to the plot to which a reply was given that the plot belonged to him and they were staying on the plot. He went on to state that Alimuddin @bona gave exhortation to Ram Kishore, upon which Ram Kishore took out a pistol from his right hand pocket of his pant and started firing as a result of which his father Wahid Ahmed, cousin brother Kamil and Sajid sustained bullet injuries. Ram Kishore, Alimuddin, Ramphal Pradhan and Pinto started running when Shahid Ahmed chased all the four persons. He went on to state that Ramphal Pradhan and Pinto managed to escape while Ram Kishore and Alimuddin were apprehended and the pistol was snatched from Ram Kishore. Ram Kishore, Alimuddin, Ramphal Pradhan and Pinto started running when Shahid Ahmed chased all the four persons. He went on to state that Ramphal Pradhan and Pinto managed to escape while Ram Kishore and Alimuddin were apprehended and the pistol was snatched from Ram Kishore. He went on to state that Ram Kishore and Alimuddin managed to escape and in the meantime a P. C. R. van came and with their help both Ram Kishore and Alimuddin were apprehended when the pistol which was snatched from Ram Kishore was handed over to his mother. Station House Officer, Police Station, Timarpur, made his endorsement on the statement of Aneez. Ahmed and sent the same to Police Station Timarpur, on the basis of which the case was registered. ( 3 ). I have heard Shri P. N. Lekhi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri R. D. Jolly, learned counsel for the State. ( 4 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that with regard to this incident, which took place at about 6. 00 am. , the First Information Report was recorded only at 10. 55 am. , i. e. after an undue delay of about five hours. He has also submitted that the statement of Aneez Ahmed, which forms the basis of the First Information Report, was recorded after due deliberations and a perusal of thy same makes it abundantly clear that Jai Bhagwan was not present at the spot and it is only on this account that his name does not figure in the First Information Report. He has further submitted that Aneez Ahmed, complainant, is a young and educated boy who, as per the case of the prosecution, was an eye witness to the incident, having given all the minor details. It has, thus, been submitted that it is only at a later stage that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has furthersubmitted that the Station House Officer, Police Station Timarpur, has made efforts to fabricate evidence in as much as in his report dated 27. 11. It has, thus, been submitted that it is only at a later stage that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He has furthersubmitted that the Station House Officer, Police Station Timarpur, has made efforts to fabricate evidence in as much as in his report dated 27. 11. 1993 submitted by him in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, where application for bail of the petitioner was being considered, he has mentioned with regard to the petitioner having been named in the First Information Report and that he has even mentioned about the words of Jai Bhagwan, which clearly indicates that he was not fair in the investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is being falsely implicated on account of old enmity and that the petitioner has always been ready and willing to join the investigation. The prayer has, thus, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail in anticipation of his arrest. ( 5 ). Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly controverted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has claimed that it was an incident in which two persons lost their lives and that merely because of the name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the First Information Report would not be sufficient to hold that he was not an accused participating in this incident. He has further submitted that during the course of the investigation statement of Sajid, wh has made a categorical statement about the participation of Jai Bhagwan in this incident. He has also referred to the statement of Rajesh and Moolchand, recorded on 25. 11. 1993, to support the involvemenof the petitioner in this incident. He has also submitted that there has, in fact, been no delay in the recording of the First Information Report. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the application may be dismissed. ( 6 ). There is no doubt that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the First Information Report in which the names of the other accused persons have been repeated a number of times by complainant Aneez Ahmed. One, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that in this incident Aneez Ahmed has lost his father and a cousin brother. There is no doubt that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the First Information Report in which the names of the other accused persons have been repeated a number of times by complainant Aneez Ahmed. One, however, cannot lose sight of the fact that in this incident Aneez Ahmed has lost his father and a cousin brother. Sajid is another witness who sustained injuries in this incident itself and, thus, at this stage it cannot be said that he was not a witness to the occurence. He was examined on the date of the incident itself and he has made a categorical statement about the presence of the petitioner. I have also gone through the statement of Rajesh, resident of the same village, who has inter alia stated that on 22. 11. 1993 at about 10. 30 pm. he saw Alimuddin @ Bona standing outside his house alongwith Ram Kishore Tyagi, Ramphal Pradhan, Jai Bhagwan and Pinto when during conversation one of them had stated that they would meet the next day near Masjid at about 6. 00 am. According to Moolchand on 23. 11. 1993 at about 6. 10 am. he was going to his fields and on hearing the firing from the plot in front of the Masjid he went to that place and noticed Ramphal Pradhan, his son Pinto, Ram Kishore, Jai Bhagwan and Alimuddin @ Bona coming out of the plot of Wahid and running away. There is no doubt that in the report dated 27. 11. 1993 the Station House Office has given the facts so as to indicate that the name of Jai Bhagwan was mentioned by Aneez Ahmed, complainant, also. This, however, in my view would not make much difference at this stage since the learned counsel for the State has shown the statements of Aneez Ahmed, forming the base of the First Information Report, as also the statements of Sajid, Rajesh and Moolchand. It cannot be said that there has been a long delay in the recording of the First Information Report, it is not possible to make comments at this stage with regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to inordinate delay in recording of the First Information Report. ( 7 ). It cannot be said that there has been a long delay in the recording of the First Information Report, it is not possible to make comments at this stage with regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to inordinate delay in recording of the First Information Report. ( 7 ). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that even if the facts, as alleged, are considered, it cannot be said that the petitioner shared the common intention with the other accused persons for committing the offence of murder and on this account also a prayer is made for the release of the petitioner inanticipation of his arrest. This submission has also been opposed by the learned counsel for the State. The matter is still at the stage of investigation and I am afraid it is not desirable to express any definite opinion in this regard. Suffice it to say that considering all these facts, no case is made out for the release of the petitioner in anticipation of his arrest. In this incident two lives have been lost and the matter is being investigated. The petitioner does not deserve to be. released on anticipatory bail. ( 8 ). In view of my aforesaid discussion, the application for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.