JUDGMENT 1. - All these petition may be disposed of by a common order. 2. The matter has been argued at length by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were also read over to me. 3. Mr. Gupta, appearing for petitioners Bhagirath and Pokharmal contended that the case of petitioner Pokharmal is at par with that of co-accused Hanuman, who has been released on bail. According to the learned counsel, the name of this accused did not find place in the FIR like co-accused Hanuman. For petitioner Bhagirath, it was contended that as per the arrest memo, he is an old man of 2 years of age and looking to the cause of incident that deceased had entered in the house of the accused and thereafter he was caught and assaulted, just and proper that he should also be released on bail. 4. For petitioner Moti Ram, Mr. Naruka contended that as per the prosecution case the incident had taken place at 11.00 p.m. and assault was made to the deceased by the assailants from 11.00 p.m. Moti Ram is said to have come on the spot at 2.30 or 3.00 a.m. in the morning. The statements of some witnesses were also read over to me to show that this fact cannot be disputed that Moti Ram came at 2.30 or 3.00 a.m. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution case is that assault was going on from 11.00 p.m. and subsequently, to implicate Moti Ram, the witnesses have tried to further add that he also gave some beating after his arrival. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant contended that deceased was given merciless beating and he has sustained as many as 31 injuries. It is also contended that assault was continued even when the villagers came and asked to leave the deceased. It is also contended that some witnesses have stated that Moti Ram was present even at 11.00 p.m. 6. It is also contended that assault was continued even when the villagers came and asked to leave the deceased. It is also contended that some witnesses have stated that Moti Ram was present even at 11.00 p.m. 6. After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions made above and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner Pokharmal is an old man of 72 years of age and that the case of the petitioner Pokhar Mai is at par with that of co-accused Hanuman who has been released on bail and the fact that as per some of the prosecution witnesses, on which the prosecution has relied, have stated that Moti Ram came on the spot at 2.30 or 3.00 p.m., I am of the opinion that all the three petitioners be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. 7. It is, therefore, directed that petitioners Moti Ram s/o Hukma Ram, Bhagirath s/o Buxaram and Pokhar Mai s/o Ganpat Ram be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear in that court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of trial against them in this *******