JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the FIR and in the statement of Ajeet Singh, which is said to be a dying declaration. He also contended that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the statements of Karni Singh, Kishna Ram and Purananand for the the first time and in those statements it is alleged that the petitioner did `Mar-Peet' with the deceased with fists and slaps. He has, therefore, contended that the petitioner is entitled for bail as he is in custody for more than seven months. 3. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the bail application. They contended that the petition of Ram Pratap was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court though the action of the petitioner and Ram Pratap is said to be the same. 4. I have gone through the challan papers. Name of Ram Pratap does appear in the FIR while the name of the petitioner does not appear in it. Therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable. The post-mortem report of deceased Dilip Singh shows that all the 18 injuries, which were found on his body were caused by sharp edged weapons. The deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of these injuries. In these circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 5. Therefore, I allow the petition and order that applicant Kishore Singh shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) together with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail granted. *******