JUDGMENT 1. -Both the petitioners have been filed under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code in FIR No. 522/96 P.S. Sadar, Bilwara and, therefore, both of them are disposed of by this common order. 1. The allegations against the accused-petitioner as well as Kanwar Lal, who have been challaned under sections 302 & 364 read with Section 34, IPC, after investigation, in the Court of Session, Bhilwara, are that on 9.8.1996, accused Kaloo Ram with the aid and abetment of Kanwar Lal as well as Jakir Hussain, abducted Satish, aged 9 years, who was son of Radhey Shyam Kabra, at the time when Satish was returning home from his school. In the late evening, they took Satish to a lonely place on the Mandalgarh road, ahead of Hanumanji's temple and, thereafter, Kaloo Ram inflicted as many as 31. injuries with a 'gupti' and, thereafter, they threw the dead body of Satish in a depression by the side of the canal. All the accused-persons were apprehended on 10.8.1996. After filing of charge-sheet, as above, both the accused-petitioners moved bail petitions under section 439, Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of learned Sessions Bhilwara who rejected the same. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned P.P. and the learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the documentary evidence filed in support of the charge-sheet presented against the petitioners. 3. The learned counsel for the accused Jakir Hussain has contended that the accused was born on 27.6.1981 and so he was aged below 16 years and, therefore, he was a juvenile and, even if the prosecution story is accepted, since the petitioner was a delinquent juvenile and, therefore, he could only be tried by a Juvenile Court constituted under the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act'). However, when this objection was raised before the learned Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge embarked upon an enquiry and held that the accused-petitioner was aged more than 16 years and so he was not a delinquent juvenile and, therefore, he could not be extended benefit of Section 18 of the Act. Besides, holding that there were grounds to believe that the accused-petitioner was involved in commission of the murder and abduction of Satish with an intent to commit his murder. Besides, holding that there were grounds to believe that the accused-petitioner was involved in commission of the murder and abduction of Satish with an intent to commit his murder. However, the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further contended that the learned Sessions Judge took erroneous view of the evidence produced by the parties and erred while holding that the accused-petitioner was more than 16 years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offences. 4. Besides, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence to prove the complicity of the accused-petitioner in commission of the alleged offences. There is no chemical report in respect of the pant alleged to have been seized from the person of the accused at the time of his arrest. Besides, it is also contended that though the accused-petitioner is also alleged to have given an information about the place whereat the alleged murder which is alleged to have been committed and the dead body was hidden but, since the Investigating Officer, was, when, in know of the fact before this information was given to him and, therefore, it cannot be held that the fact of disclosing the place of occurrence was found or detected pursuant to the information so given by the petitioner. Besides, the same information was also given by the co-accused persons. 5. Besides, it is also contended that the accused-petitioner had no motive to have involved himself in commission of the murder along with his co-accused persons. Therefore, as is his further contention, since the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain had not attained the age of 16 years on the date of incident i.e. on 9.8.1996, and, alternatively, there was no evidence about his complicity in the commission of the offences and, therefore, he be allowed to be released on bail. 6. The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner Kaloo @ Kaloo Ram contended that the accused-petitioner who was, as per the prosecution story as well, a domestic servant of Radhey Shyam Kabra, who is father of deceased Satish, had some dispute about the payment of his remuneration prior to the incident and, he was, consequently removed from his job. The petitioner was insisting upon settlement of his accounts and, therefore, because of animosity and merely on the basis of suspicion, he has been falsely involved in this case. The petitioner was insisting upon settlement of his accounts and, therefore, because of animosity and merely on the basis of suspicion, he has been falsely involved in this case. There is no prima facie case to prove his complicity in the commission of the alleged offence. 7. Firstly, it is to be considered whether the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain had not attained the age of 16 years on 9.8.1996 when the alleged occurrence took place and, therefore, he is a delinquent juvenile and, therefore, he is entitled to benefit of provisions of Section 18 of the Act and the learned Sessions Judge holding otherwise has committed any irregularity or illegality. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions rendered in Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1976 SC 1057 and Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 SC 1329 and submitted that since school certificate in proof of the age of the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain was produced before the Court and, besides, the parents of the accused were also examined, who have stated that Jakir Hussain was born on 27.6.1981, there was no valid ground before the learned Sessions Judge to have disbelieved the same. Besides, the learned Sessions Judge wrongly relied on the medical evidence produced by the prosecution in an attempt to prove that the accused-petitioner had already attained the age of 17 years or more and so the petitioner was not a delinquent juvenile. Besides, relying on the decision rendered in Mata @ Mauohar Singh v. State of Raj., 1995 RCC 318 , he further submitted that since the accused-petitioner is not proved to have attained the age of 16 years on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, the accused-petitioner being a delinquent juvenile, he could only be dealt with under section 18 of the Act for the purpose of bail and not otherwise. 9. 9. On the contrary, the learned P.P., as supported by the learned counsel for the complainant, relying on the decision rendered in Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1979 , contended that the learned Sessions Judge proceeded to record oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties and, lastly, after thorough appraisal of the evidence so collected, rightly held that there was no basis for entering the date of birth being 27.6.1981 as recorded in the school certificate, since the date on whose source of knowledge, the same was recorded at the time of the admission in the school, did not have any proof in support of the same being the exact date of birth of the petitioner nor there is any record in the form of date of birth having been recorded in the register meant for recording of deaths and births to be kept by the municipality nor there is horoscope and, besides, no other documentary evidence was there. The parents of the accused-petitioner are illiterate. Besides, AW 1 Aazad is maternal uncle of the petitioner, being interested in the petitioner, the ocular testimony led by the petitioner was self-contradictory and did not inspire confidence with the learned Sessions Judge and, on the other hand, the evidence recorded in the voter-list of Mandalgarh Municipality Board as well as the medical evidence so produced by the prosecution proved that the petitioner was, aged not less than 17 years on the date of the occurrence. Therefore, once it is held that the accused-petitioner was not a delinquent juvenile on the day of the occurrence, his petition could only be considered under section 437 rule with Section 439, Criminal procedure code and, there is sufficient material on record to believe the complicity of the preient petitioner in commission of the brutal murder of a child of tender age for ransom and, therefore, the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain as well as accused-Ka loo Ram, who is main author of the alleged offences, are not entitled to bail. 10. As regards the dispute about age of the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain, the learned Sessions Judge examined AW 1 Aazad, AW 2 Smt. Saida Banu, AW 3 Aziz Mohd. and AW 4 Allaudeen in support of the petitioner while NAW 1 Dr. Avdhesh Mathur, NAW 2 Mangi Nai, NAW 3 Radhey Shyam Somani, NAW 5 Dr. 10. As regards the dispute about age of the accused-petitioner Jakir Hussain, the learned Sessions Judge examined AW 1 Aazad, AW 2 Smt. Saida Banu, AW 3 Aziz Mohd. and AW 4 Allaudeen in support of the petitioner while NAW 1 Dr. Avdhesh Mathur, NAW 2 Mangi Nai, NAW 3 Radhey Shyam Somani, NAW 5 Dr. Narayan Dixit, NAW 6 Prakash Chandra and NAW 7 Bhanwar Lai Vyas. 11. AW 1 Aazad stated that Jakir Hussain was born on 27.6.1981 and since there was marriage of the son of AW 4 Allaudeen on the very day and whose house is situated in the neighbourhood of AW 3 Aziz Mohd. so he had also called a prayer in the name of God popularly known as 'Azan' in the ear of Jakir Hussain. AW 4 Allaudeen has stated that it was the day of marriage of his son Abdul Hakim and, therefore, at the insistence of grand-maternal mother of Jakir Hussain, he had gone to the house of Jakir Hussain to call a prayer in the name of God 'Azan', while contradicting the aforesaid statement of Aazad. Besides, Allaudeen, being illiterate, could not remember the actual date of marriage of his son Abdul Hakim. He has also clearly admitted that the 'Azan' is performed by a single person and it was he who had performed the same whereas AW l Aazad being the maternal uncle of accused-petitioner, stated that he alone had performed the 'Azan', as above. Though Aazad has stated the date of birth of the petitioner to be 27.6.1981 but he has clearly admitted that he did not remember dates of births of his three children. Besides, he also admitted that the date of birth of Jakir Hussain was recorded in the record being maintained by the Mulla but no such record has been produced before the Court. Aazad even could not remember date of his own birth. Similarly, he did not remember the dates of births of other brothers of the accused-petitioner. 12. Likewise, AW 2 Smt. Saida Banu and AW 3 Aziz Mohd. who are mother and father of the accused-petitioner, have stated that though they have four children but none of them could recollect the correct date of birth of any of the children. Similarly, he did not remember the dates of births of other brothers of the accused-petitioner. 12. Likewise, AW 2 Smt. Saida Banu and AW 3 Aziz Mohd. who are mother and father of the accused-petitioner, have stated that though they have four children but none of them could recollect the correct date of birth of any of the children. Smt. Saida Banu stated that the accused-petitioner was born in the summer season and wife of Bhoora Nai had attended at the time she delivered the accused-petitioner. On the contrary, NAW 2 Mangi clearly stated that she had never attended Smt. Saida Banu at the time of her delivery and she further stated that she was never known to her and, therefore, she has clearly contradicted the statement of Smt. Saida Banu. Smt. Saida Banu further stated that she was married in June, 1981 and she delivered the accused-petitioner after five years of her marriage and that he was the third child borne to her. It shows that Smt. Saida Banu did not remember the dates of births of her children nor could she recollect the months and even years of their births. In case she was married in June, 1981. she could not have delivered the petitioner in June, 1981 itself. Besides, as is never the case of the petitioner, she further stated that the petitioner was born after about 5 years of her marriage having been celebrated in June, 1981. 13. AW 3 Aziz Mohd., who is father of the petitioner, clearly admitted that, being an illiterate person, he did not recollect dates of birth of any of his children. He further stated that Smt. Saida Banu went to the school to get the petitioner admitted there. However, he maintained that Jakir Hussain was aged 15 years and 3 months only. However, he further admitted that he could not correctly recollect the date, month as well as year of his birth. He also stated that the accused-petitioner was borne on the same day on which the marriage of the son of AW 4 Allaudeen was celebrated. Allaudeen has stated that all the family members of Aziz Mohd. had participated in the marriage ceremony. Aziz Mohd. stated that he was not present at his residence since he was out of station. 14. He also stated that the accused-petitioner was borne on the same day on which the marriage of the son of AW 4 Allaudeen was celebrated. Allaudeen has stated that all the family members of Aziz Mohd. had participated in the marriage ceremony. Aziz Mohd. stated that he was not present at his residence since he was out of station. 14. Here it may also be taken note of the fact that there is no record showing that the marriage of the son of Allaudeen was actually celebrated on 27.6.1981 Aziz Mohd. even could not state the correct date of his own marriage. 15. As a result of ocular testimony led by the petitioner and so also considered by the learned Sessions Judge, the same does not inspire confidence. The evidence so adduced is self-contradictory and there is no reliable evidence to conclude that the petitioner was, in fact, born on 27.6.1981 and, therefore, the same was correctly recorded in the school certificate at the time of his admission. Therefore, even evidence of the parents of the petitioner is admitted that Smt. Saida Banu had gone along with the accused-petitioner at the time of his admission in the school, she did not remember the correct date of birth of the getitioner and the same was never correctly recorded in the record. 16. NAW 3 Radhey Shyam Somani stated that Smt. Saida Banu presented admission form of Jakir Hussain at the time of his admission on 3.7.1987.11e clearly stated that no proof in regard to date of birth of the petitioner was produced. Besides, no affidavit, in support of the correctness of the date of birth which was entered in the admission form, was also produced. Therefore, he stated that there was absolutely no proof in support of the statement of Smt. Saida Banu to show that the accused-petitioner was born on 27.6.1981 as was entered in the admission form. This very date was accepted and found mention in the official records maintained by the school and so there was no basis for mentioning the date of birth to be 27.6.1981 in the admission form specially when, as per the evidence led by the accused-petitioner, the admission took after about 6 years from the date of the alleged birth and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, Smt. Saida Banu could have remembered the correct date of birth of the accused-petitioner. The petitioner could have produced the record of the Mulla who is alleged to have recorded the date of birth of the petitioner at or about the time when he was born, as stated by AW I Aazad. 17. On the other hand, NAW 1 Dr. Avdhesh Mathur and NAW 5 Dr. Narayan Dixit, who are Medical Jurist and Radiologist respectively, working at the Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Bhilwara, have clearly stated that a Medical Board was constituted to find out the age of the accused-petitioner. They were members of the same. They have clearly stated that, after clinical as well as physical examination of the petitioner as well as on radiological conclusion, as a result of which it was found that there was fusion of epiphysis of the shoulder joints, elbow joints and crest of iliac bones and so, after examination of physical features, growth and development of the body of the petitioner, besides the bonny age so found out, they were of the opinion that the accused-petitioner was aged between 18 to 19 years on 14.9.1996 which is the date of their examination. They have produced the certificate Ex. 'X' and they have maintained that the age of the accused-petitioner could not have been less than 17 years on the date of their examination. 18. As regards medical evidence, it is argued from the side of the petitioner that the range of error may be up to 3 years on either side as per the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and too much reliance cannot be placed on the table showing the age and years of appearance and fusion of some of the epiphysis as observed by different authorities. At any rate, as also held in laimala v. Home Secretary, 1992(2) SCC 538 , the Court could take judicial note that the margin of error in age ascertained by Radiological Examination is two years on either side. Therefore, his further contention is that the best proof of the age is of the parents or the persons present at the time the child was born. The other mode of proof of age is the entry made contemporaneously, with the event of birth or soon after the birth in the register maintained for this purpose either in Municipal Board or any other record being maintained for the purpose. The other mode of proof of age is the entry made contemporaneously, with the event of birth or soon after the birth in the register maintained for this purpose either in Municipal Board or any other record being maintained for the purpose. On this category is included the entry in the register when the child comes to be admitted in an institution. For proof of age horoscope also could be relied upon. Finally, age could be proved by medical evidence coupled with X-ray photograph taken of the relevant points. 19. It is to be appreciated that the parents of the petitioner did not correctly remember the date of birth of the petitioner. They did not get it registered with the Municipal Board or elsewhere at the time or near about the time of birth of the petitioner. No horoscope was prepared. The same was never reduced to writing before 3.7.1987 when the petitioner was being admitted in the institution. Therefore, when the evidence led by the petitioner has been held to be self-contradictory, and wholly unreliable and, on the contrary, both Dr. Mathur as well as Dr. Dixit who also constituted the Medical Board which examined the petitioner clinically as well as radiologically and concluded the age of the petitioner to be, at any rate, not below 17 years and have withstood the cross-examination, as above, successfully sticking to the fact that the accused-petitioner could not have been of age less than 17 years on the date of his examination. Therefore, X-ray ossification test provides a sure basis of determination of age of the petitioner, in absence of evidence contrary to the same and the same can be accepted to be almost accurate to indicate the correct number of years of age the petitioner has lived and, as a result, the learned Sessions Judge did not commit any error while disbelieving the testimony of the parents of the petitioner besides AW 1 Aazad and AW 4 Allaudeen and relying on the other attending circumstantial evidence which is fully borne out by the clinical as well as radiological conclusions and also stated by the medical witnesses. 20. 20. In the circumstances, when the parents of the accused-petitioner did not remember or recollect the correct date of birth of the petitioner and they also did not remember or recollect dates of births of other children as well as Smt. Saida Banu also could not have remembered the exact date of birth of the petitioner when she filled in the admission form of the petitioner at the time of his admission in the school and she also did not produce either affidavit or any other documentary proof in support of the date of birth of the petitioner at the time of his admission as well as at the time of her examination in the lower Court, since none of the other witnesses remembered the correct date of birth of the petitioner and looking to the aforesaid contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the ocular testimony so led by the petitioner being wholly unbelievable, the medical evidence, as discussed above, found favour with the learned Sessions Judge and, presently, also, there is no material to disagree with the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge. 21. Therefore, when the parents or any other person present at the time of delivery of the petitioner did not remember the correct date of birth of the petitioner and no documentary evidence in support thereof was coming forward and there was also no basis for recording the date of birth to be 27.6.1981 at the time of the admission of the petitioner in the school and the same having been recorded in the school record does not help the Court to conclude that the date so given by merely on estimate and without any basis therefor, was the correct date of birth of the petitioner. Therefore, mere mention of date of birth in the school certificate does not help the petitioner: 22. Therefore, mere mention of date of birth in the school certificate does not help the petitioner: 22. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Bhoop Rain & Uniesh Chandra (supra), though the factum of date of birth having been recorded in the school certificate is admissible under section 35 of the Evidence Act but, however, as is discussed above, when there was absolutely no evidence of Smt. Saida Banu to have either recollected or to have mentioned the correct date of birth of the petitioner at the time she is a I loged to have got it entered in the admission form of the school specially when she was an illiterate lady and also put thumb in token of her signature, there was complete absence of any knowledge as well as information about the correct date of birth of the petitioner and, accordingly, there is no escape from the finding that the age of the petitioner so mentioned in the school record was nothing but an estimated date and not a correct one. 23. Therefore, the medical evidence so led by the prosecution, clinches the issue of age of the petitioner as held by the learned Sessions Judge. Besides, though AW 1 Aazad and AW 2 Smt. Saida Banu have denied that they ever gave any information about the age of the petitioner to be 18 years while the voter-list for the Ward No. 15 of the Municipal Board, Mandalgarh was being prepared. However, NAW 6 Prakash Chandra Bapna, while supporting Voter-list prepared for the Mandalgarh Legislative Assembly, has clearly stated that the name of the petitioner was registered as a voter at S.No. 451 of part 112 and as per the same he was aged 20 years in the year 1994-95 when the voter-lists were prepared. NAW 7 Bhanwar Lal Vyas has clearly stated that it was he who had gone to the residence of the petitioner and he prepared the voter-card 'Z' for the family of Aziz Mohd., who is father of the petitioner. He has clearly stated that the family members of the petitioner stated the present petitioner to be aged 18 years and he had recorded this age in the voter-list correctly. There was no rhyme or reason for Bhanwar Lal to have entered the age of the petitioner falsely. He has clearly stated that the family members of the petitioner stated the present petitioner to be aged 18 years and he had recorded this age in the voter-list correctly. There was no rhyme or reason for Bhanwar Lal to have entered the age of the petitioner falsely. Besides, the present petitioner is shown to be aged 18 years and he is registered as member of the family of Aziz Mohd. At S. No. 6 and the age of Aziz Mohd. and Smt. Saida Banu has been mentioned as 65 and 60 years respectively. This was the voter-list for the year 1995 and was prepared much before this incident took place. 24. On the basis of the facts and circumstances narrated and discussed herein-before, as already concluded, there is no material on record on which the date of birth recorded in the school register could be taken to be the correct one. 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bird Mah Singhvi's case (supra) has held that to render a document admissible under section 35, three conditions must be satisfied, firstly; entry that is relied on must be one in a public or other official book, register or record, secondly, it must be an entry stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and thirdly, it must be made by a public servant in discharge of his official duty or any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by law. An entry relating to date of birth made in the school register is relevant and admissible under section 35 of the Act but the entry regarding the age of a person in a school register is of not much evidentiary value to prove the age of the person in the absence of the material on which the age was recorded. 26. Presently, though the school record being admissible and relevant, as above, it has not been proved as to what was the material on the basis of which the same was recorded in the admission form at the time of admission of the petitioner in the school and, therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, no reliance can be placed on the date so recorded in the school register. 27. 27. As a result, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Jakir Hussain that the learned Sessions Judge committed any irregularity or illegality while concluding that the accused-petitioner was aged not less than 17 years at the time of the commission of the alleged offence. Consequently, the decision rendered in Mata @ Manohar Singh's case (supra) which is mainly based on the aim, object and interpretation of Section 18 of the Act, does not help the petitioner at all. 28. Now, coining to the merits of the petitions, there is no denial of the fact that Satish aged 9 years, son of Radhey Shyam Kabra, was abducted while he was on his way from school to his house as are the statements of Smt. Kanta, Rahul and Nitin. Besides, as was found out during the course of investigation, the dead body of Satish was found on the out-skirts of the city by the road side, in a depression of the canal running by the side of the Bhilwara-Mandalgarh road. The dead body, as evidenced by the Medical Board, bore not less than 31 incised wounds and he had died from all those injuries resulting in shock and consequential death. So there is no dispute about the murder of Satish. 29. As regards complicity and involvement of the accused-petitioners, in Jakir Hussain's case, a blood stained pant was recovered from his person at the time of his arrest. He also led the police officers to the place of occurrence pointing out the place whereat Satish was done to death and his dead body was thrown. Besides, the statements of Pyar Chand as well as Shambhoo Singh who has stated that at or about the time of the alleged occurrence the accused-petitioner hired a cycle which was returned at 8 p.m. on the day of the occurrence and besides the fact that the accused-petitioner, who was a friend of the co-accused Kaloo Ram as well Kanwar Lal, had accompanied his co-accused persons from Mandalgarh to Bhilwara on the day of the occurrence and he was in their company through out the day and they were waiting for Satish for his coming out of the school. They were, lastly, seen together before the commission of the alleged occurrence. They were, lastly, seen together before the commission of the alleged occurrence. As is also the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned P.P., since Satish bore not less than 31 incised wounds and he was so brutally murdered and the same could not have been a handy work of a single person and instead more than one persons must have participated in the same act. 30. After perusal of statement of Pyar Chand, also recorded under section 164, Criminal procedure Code, presently, it cannot be accepted that there is no ground to believe that the accused-petitioner was also involved in commission of murder of Satish. 31. Similarly, as regards accused-petitioner Kaloo Kaloo Ram, he had a very strong motive to have committed the murder of Satish for ransom and he also telephoned twice Radhey Sham Kabra and, since he did not succeed in receiving the amount of ransom and, after abduction of Satish, since Kaloo Ram was in the employment of Radhey Shyam Kabra and because of some dispute and differences he was removed and, thereafter, Radhey Shyam further helped Kaloo Ram to establish a shop of clothes at Mandalgarh and as a result, the accused-petitioner became indebted of Radhey Shyam and he was unable to pay the amount and so when Radhey Shyam insisted for payment and some dispute arose. The accused petitioner felt insulted and so he had had a very strong motive to have finished the son of Radhey Shyam to teach him with a lesson. He was in search of opportunity to accomplish aim and motive and, lastly, with the aid and assistance of Jakir Hussain as well as Kanwar Lal, he abducted Satish taking him away from his school representing that since he was sent by Radhey Shyam to fetch Satish and, instead, he took Satish to a lonely place and with the aid of his both associates, who were made to wait near the cinema house, he brutally assaulted Satish with 'gupti' thereby causing numerous injuries and causing his death and, thereafter, throwing his dead body into the depression by the side of the canal. His bushirt seized by the police at the time of his arrest bore blood stains. Besides, the blood stained 'gupti' was recovered from a place pointed out by the accused-petitioner. 32. His bushirt seized by the police at the time of his arrest bore blood stains. Besides, the blood stained 'gupti' was recovered from a place pointed out by the accused-petitioner. 32. Therefore, looking to his conduct precedent to the occurrence and the fact that he bore a strong ill-will against Radhey Shyam Kabra and so, besides, with intend to extort ransom money, in which he did not succeed, he along with his both associates committed murder. He, lastly abducted Satish, as is also directly deposed to by Kanta, Rahul and Nitin and so also by Pyar Chand. 33. As a result, there is enough material, presently, to hold that the both the accused petitioners along with Kanwar Lal, abducted Satish while on the way to his house and, lastly, they committed his murder.That being so, looking to the gravity of the offences besides the brutality with which Satish was done to death, there is no mitigating circumstance to release either of the accused-persons on bail. On the basis of above discussion, both the bail petitions are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed.Application dismissed. *******