JUDGMENT 1. - This is second bail application, Previous one (1632/96) having been dismissed on 16.12.1996 as not pressed, in sessions case No. 2/96 arising out of FiR No. 190/96 registered at RS. Gangashahar, resulting in filing of charge-sheet and pending trial against accused petitioner and four other accused persons for commission of murder of Prabhu Singh. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while taking through the FIR lodged by Smt. Bhanwri Devi, who is wife of deceased, and so also the alleged eye witnesses PW-2 Kamal, PW-3 Bhanwri Devi, PW-5 Lichmi Ram and PW-6 Moolpuri etc. and so also the post mortem report, contended that there are omnibus type of statements of witnesses as regards the involvement of accused-petitioner Manoj. It is further contended that after being totally assaulted by Kishan Lal and Omiya, accused petitioner along with Arvind, who has been bailed out, assaulted the deceased with a Gupti, but no specific injury, being total, to the deceased, is attributed to the accused petitioner. Besides, the role assigned to the present petitioner is the same which was attributed to Arvind, who has been bailed out and, on no ground, case of present petitioner is distinguishable from that of Arvind, who has been released along with his mother Smt. Bhanwari. Accordingly, his further submission is that, at present, since material eye witnesses have been examined and, consequently, looking to the back ground of the dispute relating to the agricultural land, at present accused petitioner, looking to his age and specific role attributed to him, deserves to be bailed out. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that accused petitioner is a family member of Kishan Lal, who is already in custody along with Omiya. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, looking to the multiple injuries, their nature and consequential death of the deceased, has submitted that since petitioner is also liable victoriously with the aid of Section 149 IPC for commission of murder of Prabhu Singh and, presently, there is hardly any case for release of accused petitioner on bail. 4. I have considered the statements of alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence along with medical evidence, besides the FIR and at present, so far as petitioner is concerned, his case is hardly distinguishable from that of co-accused Arvind already bailed out and, consequently, it is just and proper that accused petitioner may be granted bail. 4. I have considered the statements of alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence along with medical evidence, besides the FIR and at present, so far as petitioner is concerned, his case is hardly distinguishable from that of co-accused Arvind already bailed out and, consequently, it is just and proper that accused petitioner may be granted bail. 5. Resultantly, this second bail application is accepted and it is ordered that in case the petitioner furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- besides two sureties each in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of trial court, undertaking to appear on each arid every date of hearing and, besides, also undertaking not to tamper with the prosecution evidence, he shall be released on bail, in case the accused petitioner does not abide by these conditions while on bail, learned trial Judge shall be at liberty to cancel the bail of petitioner and take him into judicial custody without reference to the court. 6. This application stands disposed of accordingly. *******