JUDGMENT 1. - This is second bail application on behalf of petitioner Kalu Ram under section 439 Cr.P.C; in State v. Tara Chand & Ors., Sessions Case No. 3/97 pending in the Court of learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali under sections 302, 323 r/w 34, IPC and 3(i)(x) & 3(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The First bail application was rejected by this Court on 17.1.1998. 2. The prosecution case is that on 18.12.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. complainant Mohan Lal was going to his house from his hotel and when he approached Ram Leela ground the petitioner and other co-accused persons armed with lathies and knife attacked his brother Pokar Ram. Tara Chand and Babu gave lathi blows. Pokar Ram fell down and thereafter Bhima Ram and petitioner Kalu Ram caught hold of Pokar Ram and Leeladhar inflicted knife blow on the neck and right chest. Anda Ram, Dau etc. rescued them. Tara Chand also gave lathi blow to the complainant when he tried to save Pokar Ram. Pokar Ram died of the injuries. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that co-accused Tara Chand who is alleged to have inflicted injuries by lathi has been released on bail on 13.2.1998. Leeladhar who inflicted injuries by knife has been released by this Court on 27.7.1998. The case of the present petitioner is on better footing and he may be released on bail because similar treatment should be meted out to the petitioner. It is further contended that Tara Chand lodged a report on the same date at 10.00 p.m. against complainant Mohan Lal, Anda Ram, Gordhan Ram and Madan Lal that he was sitting at the Cycle Stand installed in the Circus show by his sons Leeladhar and Chandra Shekhar. He sent his son Leeladhar to his house to take meals. After about 10-15 minutes, Bharta and his two sons Gordhan and Madan came to the Cycle Stand and struck down 2-3 cycles. He tried to prevent them. Thereafter Pokar, Mohan, Hamira came armed with lathies and knife and attacked his son Chandra Shekhar who got injuries on head. They also inflicted injuries to him. Madan took out knife but Leeladhar pulled him and he was saved and in this process the knife hit Pokar. Then they started beating Leeladhar by lathis. He tried to prevent them. Thereafter Pokar, Mohan, Hamira came armed with lathies and knife and attacked his son Chandra Shekhar who got injuries on head. They also inflicted injuries to him. Madan took out knife but Leeladhar pulled him and he was saved and in this process the knife hit Pokar. Then they started beating Leeladhar by lathis. In this process Leeladhar in self defence gave lathi blows to Mohan and Dau. Police came on the spot. On this report case FIR No. 501 dated 18.12.1997 under sections 147, 148, 323, 307 r/w Section 149 IPC has been registered and it is under investigation against the complainant and his associates. It is, therefore, submitted that the complainant party was the aggressor. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact of release on bail of co-accused Tara Chand and Leeladhar because their cases are different on facts. Tara Chand inflicted injury by lathi, but Kalu Ram after falling down caught hold of Pokar Ram and aided the attack by knife by co-accused Leeladhar. It is also vehemently contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the complainant that mis-statement of fact was made in the bail petition of Leeladhar that all the co-accused have already been released on bail whereas Kalu Ram petitioner was not released on bail by the time the order of bail was passed on 27.7.1998. The complainant has moved an application for cancellation of bail of Leeladhar under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. on the aforesaid ground as well as also that he threatened the witness Dau Ram on 3.8.1998 with dire consequences, if he appeared witness against him. A complaint under sections 107 & 116(3) Cr.P.C. has been filed by SHO, Kotwali Pali in the Court of S.D.M., Pali in which show cause notice has been issued. After falling down of Pokar, the petitioner caught hold of him and Leeladhar armed with knife inflicted blows. Thus the petitioner had Common intention as well as abetted the commission of offence under section 302 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged act of Leeladhar regarding extending threats to Dau Ram. Thus the petitioner had Common intention as well as abetted the commission of offence under section 302 IPC. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner replied that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the alleged act of Leeladhar regarding extending threats to Dau Ram. Furthermore, the petitioner's case is on better footing from the case of Tara Chand because Tara Chand inflicted lathis blow which made Pokar Ram to fall. The application for cancellation of bail has been moved against Leeladhar and the petitioner is not affected by that application even if the-bail of Leeladhar is cancelled. It is also contended that the bail to Leeladhar and Tara Chand was granted on considering the cross FIR and the injuries received by the persons of the accused side. 6. I have considered the submissions and perused the case diary of FIRs No. 500 & 501 of 1997. The injury report of Leeladhar in the cross FIR shows one lacerated wound on the occipital region. Chandra Shekhar suffered swelling on left parietal region along with 3 abrasions and bruises. The injury report of Tara Chand shows two lacerated 'L' shaped wounds 7 cm x 1 cm & 5 cm x 1 cm on occipital and parietal regions. 7. I have perused the statements of the witnesses and injury reports of both the case diaries. The allegation of giving threats to Dau Ram is against Leeladhar for which an application for cancellation of bail has been filed according to the complainant. Having considered the rival submissions and over all facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail. 8. The bail application is allowed and it is hereby ordered that petitioner Kalu Ram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 /- (Rs. twenty thousand) and two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000 / - each to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali for his appearance on all the dates of hearing and whenever called upon to do so and further that he shall not extend threat, inducement or promise to the witnesses acquainted with this case.Bail granted. *******