Judgment D. C. DALELA, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the above bail applications pertain to a case, arising out the same FIR No. 291/98 of Police Station, Kotwali, Jhunjhunu and, therefore, they are decided by this common order. ( 2 ) THESE are bail applications under Section 439, Cr. P. C. and the accusations against both the accused applicants, are for offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 302/149, IPC. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, on 09-10-1998, at about 10 a. m. , at or near the roadways bus- stand of Jhunjhunu, some eight accused persons, including both the accused applicants, surrounded the deceased. They were armed with various weapons. One of the accused persons, namely, Ramesh, stabbed the deceased with a knife, in his abdomen, and the other assaulted him. Consequently, the deceased died. According to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained seven injuries, out of which, four were stab-wounds. The cause of death has been stated to be syncope due to internal haemorrhage, due to injuries to liver and spleen. Thus, this is a case of broad day light murder at a public place at or near the bus-stand. ( 4 ) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. In the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another, in para 8, Honble the Supreme Court has held as under:"the occurrence took place, in the broad day light, in a busy market place and there are a number of eye-witnesses to support the case against the respondent who was named as an assailant in the First Information Report. Immediately, after the occurrence he could not be traced it was alleged that he had absconded for more than a month attempts were made on his behalf to tamper with evidence. In view of these facts and circumstances, the respondent No. 1 was not entitled to bail if the seriousness of the matter was realised and a judicious approach was made Evidently, Honble The Supreme Court ordered the cancellation of bail, after taking into account, the following four facts: (1) Broad day light murder took place in a busy market place; (2) There were a number of eyewitnesses to support the case; (3) Immediately after the occurrence, the accused-respondent No. 1 was not traced; and (4) Attempt to tampering with the evidence was alleged. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case that broad day light murder took place in the busy market place and the existence of the eyewitnesses were obviously taken by Honble the Supreme Court, to make the matter serious, which does not entitle the accused to bail. That is why Honble the Supreme Court in para-6, observed as under:"liberty is to be secured through process of law, which is administered keeping in mind the interests of the accused, the near and dear of the victim who lost his life and who feel helpless and believe that there is no justice in the world as also the collective interest of the community so that parties do not lose faith in the institution and indulge in private retribution. " ( 6 ) THERE may not be any difference in the nature of the act of murder in a public place and that in not a public place. But, in potentiality and in the reach of the act upon the society, the former is very different from the latter. A broad day light murder in a public place does affect a larger number of persons in the locality and injury to the society is greater and larger. Interest of society in such a case becomes greater and important consideration. Killing of a person in a public place is not something to be taken lightly. If the crime of murder is committed in a public place like a bus stand, the whole society gets shock and the persons involved in such a crime are taken by the society to be dare devils having no regard to law. In such a case, if the accused persons are released on bail, the society gets demoralised; criminals get encouraged; and the public faith and confidence in the judicial system, becomes a casuality. I find myself in agreement with the observations of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, expressed in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Gyan Singh, which are as under: Committing offence in a public place in the manner aforesaid indicates that the NA5 are dare devils having no regard to law in such cases, discretion to grant bail should not be exercised in favour of accused persons as it has the effect of demoralising the society and giving undue importance to crimes and criminals. Interest of society is an important consideration in such matters. Interest of society is an important consideration in such matters. In the present case, there are eyewitnesses, who support the prosecution-case. ( 7 ) IN the case of Pratapaneni Ravi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Honble the Supreme Court has laid down that where the accused persons were members of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to cause death whether all of them had beaten the deceased or not was really not of any consequence and all should have been held guilty of causing death ( 8 ) IN the present case in hand, the accused-applicants, along with others, armed with weapons came to the bus-stand and surrounded the deceased. Thereupon, one of them, named Ramesh caused stab-wounds with a knife. After inflicting injuries to the deceased, all of them went away in a vehicle. The accused-applicants were not by-standers, as there is nothing on record to suggest this. Therefore, it does not appear that the accused-applicants were not the members of the unlawful assembly. ( 9 ) THE accused party surrounded the deceased and thereupon. one of them killed him by causing stab wounds. Thus the common object of the assembly seems to be to cause death. Therefore, the accused-applicants can be charged for the broad day light murder at a public place, with the aid of Section 149 IPC. It is not possible at this stage to say that they cannot be so charged. ( 10 ) IN my opinion, grant of bail in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case where broad day light murder at a public place has taken place would have the effect of demoralising the society and giving larger regard to the crime and criminals than to the defence of the society itself. Therefore, bail should not be granted in this case. Both the bail applications are therefore, dismissed. Applications dismissed.