JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been preferred u /s. 438, Cr.P.C., by the accused-petitioner in FIR No. 111/96 under sections 302 & 392, IPC registered at P.S., Nosara (District Jalore) and at present pending investigation with the CID (C.B.), Jodhpur after similar application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalore vide his order dated 8.1.1998. 2. For the disposal of di le present controversy and the petition suffice it to mention that Narpat Singh, who is brother of Ajeet Singh deceased, despatched typed report to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore while forwarding copies of the same to higher police authorities, besides, Home Minister of the State on 27.8.1996 alleging therein that since the accused-petitioner who is his cousin brother and due to some family feuds and revenue disputes going on between Ajeet Singh and his family on the one hand and the accused-petitioner on the other side in various revenue Courts at Jalore as well as with the Revenue Board, Ajmer, Ajeet Singh and the accused-petitioner were at daggers drawn. The fateful incident took place on 11.8.1996. Ajeet Singh, after consulting his Advocate etc. while returning to his residence, dropped at the road crossing of Nosara in the afternoon and he was waiting for some means of transport at the hotel of Amar Singh whereat, in absence of Amar Singh, his minor son Prithvi Singh was working. In the afternoon, the accused-petitioner is alleged to have dropped at the hotel while travelling in his jeep and finding Ajeet Singh sitting there, he immediately went to him and started quarrelling and he also thrashed Ajeet Singh who was an old man aged about 65 years and as a result of being beaten with slaps, fists and kicks and, lastly, as also alleged strangulated, died on the spot. After being informed about it,. family members of the deceased went to the hotel and took his dead body to their residence and, lastly, till then suspecting no foul play in the death of the deceased, they cremated dead body of Ajeet Singh. It was further alleged that, subsequently, informant and his family members learnt of the incident and Ajeet Singh having been killed at the hands of the accused-petitioner and hence the report was being lodged at a late stage. It was further alleged that, subsequently, informant and his family members learnt of the incident and Ajeet Singh having been killed at the hands of the accused-petitioner and hence the report was being lodged at a late stage. Then the Superintendent of Police forwarded this report to the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station, Nosara whereat Gopi Chand, Officer-in-charge, immediately registered FIR No. 111/96 under the aforesaid sections and started investigation. 3. It was on 23.9.1996 that, during the pendency of investigation, since the informant had alleged in the report itself from the beginning and so he was having a grievance against the Officer-in-charge of the said Police Station suspecting his impartiality in the case and So the investigation was further entrusted to Crime Assistant to the S.P. Ja lore who conducted the investigation and came to the conclusion that accused was found to be liable for commission of the alleged offences but, however, the case was, at the instance of the Addl. Director General of Police, transferred to the Crime Branch at Jodhpur whereat the further investigation was conducted and, lastly, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, investigating the case, came to the conclusion that the accused-petitioner appears to be liable for commission of offence under section 304, IPC and, hence, apprehending his arrest, the accused-petitioner moved, as above, for anticipatory bail.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and have also perused the investigation record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been, as above, delay of about 16 days in lodging of FIR; there was neither medical examination nor post-mortem of the dead body of Ajeet Singh, Dr. Chundawat was fetched to the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and Dr. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been, as above, delay of about 16 days in lodging of FIR; there was neither medical examination nor post-mortem of the dead body of Ajeet Singh, Dr. Chundawat was fetched to the scene of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and Dr. Chundawat and so also Vaidya Achal Singh have stated that the possibility could not be excluded out-right that the deceased had died of a heart-stroke;.the investigating agency, in the first instance and so also in the last instance, barring investigation by the Crime Assistant, could not conclude sufficient material to conclude that the deceased did not die a natural death and, instead, he had died a violent and unnatural death to conclude that his death was a homicidal one and, besides, the animosity, admittedly, existing between the parties is a double-edged weapon and so also, in totality of the facts and circumstances when the alleged eye-witnesses kept mum for indefinitely long period and have changed their versions either in part or wholly and so the statements of the witnesses who are alleged to have seen the occurrence and so also Govind Singh Shrimali in regard to extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused-petitioner just after the occurrence does not prima facie inspire any confidence and, accordingly, his submission is that the accused-petitioner is innocent warranting no arrest and, in,view of these circumstances, when there are two equal possibilities, then too it is hardly a case for rejection of prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and hence he be allowed anticipatory bail. 5. However, the learned Public Prosecutor, while taking through the statements of the witnesses alleged to have witnessed the occurrence recorded even thrice and so plso the circumstantial evidence and the motive for commission of the crime, submitted that initially the police was not impartial and did not investigate the case in its right perspective as was apprehended in the FIR itself and this led to repeated change of Investigating Officer but, any how, even as per the last conclusion of the Addl. Superintendent of Police, CID (C.B.), it cannot be said that no case under section 304, IPC is made out and there is also allegation of taking away bag along with material case record of the deceased by the accused-petitioner and, resultantly, there is a prima facie case against the accused in regard to commission of the offences alleged and, therefore, it hardly warrants grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. On giving considerate thought to the rival contentions and after going through the statements of the witnesses specially Prithvi Singh who is son of Amar Singh and whose statement is further corroborated by Amar Singh himself, Mahanat Bhagwati Prasad who has also filed affidavit in support of his statement, Ram Singh, Prakash, Gajiya and Jaga Ram who have testified about deceased's being assaulted by the accused-petitioner at the hotel of Amar Singh whereat he had, as per the statements of these witnesses, succumbed to the injuries received at the hands of the petitioner and, besides, the statement of Govind Ram Shrimali who has further stated that the accused-petitioner, as early as on 11.8.1996 itself, confessed about commission of murder of the deceased, at present, it is inopportune and premature to embark upon the veracity and reliability of these witnesses who are not found to be related to either party. Though, as above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged these versions on the grounds of correctness and reliability of the witnesses mainly on the ground of some delay made in lodging of the FIR and, in absence of any evidence to show that it was a result of no violence specially on the basis of statements of Dr. Chundawat and Vaidya Dr. Achal Singh and the investigation having changed hands time and again but, at present, on the face of even witnesses including Dr. Chundawat and Vaidya Dr. Achal Singh and the investigation having changed hands time and again but, at present, on the face of even witnesses including Dr. Chundawat and Vaidya Achal Singh who have deposed that there was no external injury on the person of the deceased who was found dead at the hotel of Amar Singh himself and, consequently, initially no foul play having been suspected regarding cause of death of the deceased, his dead body was not subjected to any post-mortem or medical evidence and other symptoms regarding marks of violence, if any, on the neck of the deceased or froths coming out of the mouth of the deceased having not been noticed, all those witnesses who have testified regarding any stroke of heart attack having occurred leading to death of the accused-petitioner have no scientific or any supporting ground or proof in support thereof and, at present, needless to repeat that even the Crime Assistant and so also the Addl. Superintendent of Police, lastly, investigating the case, have reached the conclusion that there are reasons to believe that the accused-petitioner is liable for commission of offence falling under section 304 (not excluding part I) IPC and, in this view of this fact, even if it is assumed that there are two versions in regard to the cause of death of Ajeet Singh, there being strong ground to hold that the deceased was thrashed and subjected to an assault by the accused-petitioner who had a strong motive being inimical to the deceased, the deceased having succumbed to the injuries instantaneously at the spot itself, there is nothing to dis-agree with the findings of the Investigating Officers that the accused-petitioner appears to be liable for causing violent death of the deceased and that does not warrant release of the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7. Consequently, a without expressing any opinion on impartiality or partiality of any of the aforesaid investigation officers, for the present, this petition otherwise also is devoid of merit. 8. Resultantly, this petition is hereby dismissed.Bail dismissed. *******