JUDGMENT 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 & 302/149, IPC. 3. According to the prosecution, on 9.10.98, 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 others assaulted him. Consequently, the deceased died. According to the post-mortem 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 & 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. 5. In the case of Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan & another ( AIR 1987 SC 1613 ) , in para-8, Hon'ble 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 " 6. Evidently, Hon'ble 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 eye-witnesses to support the case; (3) immediately after the occurrence, the accused-respondent No.l was not traced; and (4) attempt to tampering with the evidence was alleged. 7. 7. The facts of the case that broad day light murder took place in the busy market place and the existence of the eye-witnesses were obviously taken by Hon'ble. The Supreme Court, to make the matter serious, which does not entitle the accused to bail. That is why Hon'ble 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........" 8. 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 & larger. Interest of society in such a case becomes greater & 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 & confidence in the judicial system, becomes a casualty. 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 (1992 Cri. L.J. 192) which are as under:- "Committing offence in a public place in the manner aforesaid indicates that the NAs 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. 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." In the present case, there are eye-witnesses, who support the prosecution-case. 9. In the case of Pratapaneri Ravi Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997) Cri. L.J. 3505 (SC) ), Hon'ble 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 " 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. In my opinion, grant of bail in the peculiar facts & 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.Bail Application Dismissed. *******