Short Note This is an application filed on behalf of the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. Accused-applicant Gabbar S/o Gaffar is in custody since 17.5.2000 in connection with crime No. 123/2000 registered at Police Station, Harijan Kalyan, Ujjain for the alleged charges under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, IPC read with sections 3(1) (10) and 3(2)(5) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As per prosecution story one Bahadursingh lodged the FIR on 12.5.2000 that in the field of Dhansingh all the accused persons namely Babusingh, Prabhu, uncle of Babusingh and other persons were killing deceased Ramesh, Babusingh was having sword in his hand. The submission of Shri Parihar is that deceased Ramesh was having a criminal background and so many criminal cases were registered against him. The name of this applicant is not appearing in the FIR. He was also not identified and no identification parrade was arranged though the challan has already been filed. In reply the submission of Shri Salim is that one Dayaram who was passing through that filed had seen the incident and he named this applicant Sabbar who was throwing stones on the deceased. As per postmortem report, deceased received as many as 20 injuries. including 12 incised wounds and lacerated wounds on various parts of the body. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that there are no injuries by stones. The lacerated wound received from stones is not responsible for causing death. The further submission of Shri Parihar is that the applicant is a young boy of 16 years and if he is permitted to remain in jail, his career would be ruined in the company of hardened criminals. In the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1978 SC 179 ), the Supreme Court has held as under: “Considerations in granting bail which are common both in the case of Ss. 437(1) and 439(1). In the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) ( AIR 1978 SC 179 ), the Supreme Court has held as under: “Considerations in granting bail which are common both in the case of Ss. 437(1) and 439(1). Cr.P.C., are: (i) the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; (ii) the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; (iii) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) of repeating the offence; (v) of jeopardizing his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; (vi) of tampering with witnesses; (vii) the history of the case as well as of its investigation; and (viii) other relevant grounds which, in view of so many variable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.” Again in the case of Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat ( AIR 1984 SC 372 ), the Supreme Court has held as under: "Even where a prima-facie case is established, the approach of the Court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way or punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. If there is no prima fade case, there is no question of considering other circumstances." Considering the submissions and also looking to the material collected in the case-diary and challan papers, this application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond for the sum of Rs. 25.000/- (Twenty five thousand rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial. Court on the condition that he shall regularly appear before the trial Court on, each and every date of hearing; shall not involve in tampering the prosecution witnesses; and shall fully cooperate in the quick disposal of the trial. This order shall not affect the merits of the case at the time of trial.