ORDER T. Vaiphei, J. 1. The six petitioners, who are detained in custody in connection with Kailashahar P. S. Case No. 76/2004, under Sections 148/149/506/365/511/326/302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pray for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' only). 2. The prosecution case, shorn of details, is that on 20-7-2004 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner No. 1, who is a sitting M. L. A. and the President of the Tripura Pradesh Congress Committee, the petitioner No.2, who is a Congress leader, the petitioner No. 3, who is the elected member of the Parishad and the remaining petitioners, who are security guards of the petitioner No. 1 came to Babur Bazar and entered into an altercation with the informant and others over the alleged prevention by the latter of Congress voters from casting their votes. The report alleges that the petitioner No. 1 caught hold of the color of the informant and tried to drag him to his vehicle whereupon the son of the informant and some other young men of the locality came forward to rescue his father, which eventually compelled the petitioner No. 1 to release him. However, the petitioner No. 1 also allegedly instigated his personal security guards to start indiscriminate firing at the crowds causing injuries to civilians while he himself shot at Abdul Hannan, son of the informant, from his Pistol which was in his possession. Due to the indiscriminate firing, one Nikhil Chandra Deb also sustained bullet injuries in his abdomen. By this time, one mobile van of T. S. R. arrived on the spot and on seeing this, the petitioners fled away by an auto-rickshaw leaving their two vehicles behind. One of the victims, namely, the said Abdul Hannan, died on the way to a hospital. The petitioners are accordingly arrested and booked under the aforesaid sections of law. 3. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsels, and Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. P. Bhattacharjee and Mr. B. R. Das Roy, learned counsel for the State-respondent. 4. 3. I have heard Mr. J. M. Choudhury, Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsels, and Mr. A. C. Bhowmik, and Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. D. Sarkar, learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr. P. Bhattacharjee and Mr. B. R. Das Roy, learned counsel for the State-respondent. 4. At the outset, it may be recalled that this Court by the order dated 29-7-2004 had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to place before this Court on 5-8-2004 the report of the ballistic expert to whom the firearm allegedly seized from the petitioner No. 1 and the extract of the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased had been sent for examination. The report so requisitioned was placed before this Court on 5-8-2004. However, after the application was heard at length on that day, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made grievances on the non-availability of the case Diaries of the connected counter-cases, namely, Kailashahar P. S. Case No. 77/2004 and No. 78/2004, without which, according to them, this Court would not be able to properly determine their bail prayer. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was of the view that sufficient grounds were made out for production of those case diaries. Accordingly, the learned P. P. was directed to produce the same on 9-8-2004. As directed, the Case Diaries were produced on 9-8-2004. At this stage, it may be noticed that the said Kailashahar P. S. Case No. 77 of 2004 arose out of the complaint lodged by the petitioner No. 1 while Kailashahar P. S. Case No. 78 of 2004 pertains to the complaint lodged by one of the personal security guards of the petitioner No. 1, namely, Shri Anil Chandra Das over the Killing of his colleague, namely, Nikhil Chandra Deb allegedly by the C. P. I. (M) workers including the informant of this case, i.e., Kailashahar P. S. Case No. 76/2004. Thus, it becomes clear that two persons lost their lives in this orgy of senseless violence resulting from apparent scramble for power between two political parties. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Thus, it becomes clear that two persons lost their lives in this orgy of senseless violence resulting from apparent scramble for power between two political parties. 5. It is submitted by Mr. J.M. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that there is no prima facie case against any of the petitioners, who have been falsely implicated by the police with a view to save the C.P.I. (M) miscreants from the crimes committed by them. It is further submitted by him that there are cases and counter-cases resulting from the exchange of firing between the rivals which caused the death of two persons on either side and that in that view of the matter, it cannot be said with certainty as to who was responsible for the death of Abdul Hannan. He also goes on to state that on the available materials on record, there is no evidence with the prosecution to connect the petitioners with the crime and, as such, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. The learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the ballistic report wherein the ballistic expert opined that the bullet recovered from the said Abdul Hannan was not fired from the fire-arm of the petitioner No. 1 and of the serious contradictions between the contents of the F.I.R. and the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code on the incident in question and also on the person who fired at the said deceased. Moreover, continues the learned counsel, the petitioners No. 4, 5 and 6 were discharging their official duty of protecting the petitioner No. 1 and whatever acts of commission or omission committed by them were squarely saved by law and no bad faith or mens rea could reasonably be imputed to them for such acts of commission or omission. Finally, he submits that the offences charged against the petitioners cannot be held to be of heinous nature so to deprive them of the right to be released on bail and that this Court may impose any conditions as it deems fit to secure their attendance in Court and to prevent them from hampering the investigation or from tampering with the evidence or from intimidating the prosecution witnesses. 6. In opposing the bail prayer. Mr. 6. In opposing the bail prayer. Mr. D. Sarkar, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, contents that the counter-case filed by the petitioner No. 1 (Kailashahar P. S. case No. 77/2004) does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as the complaint was lodged by him with inordinate delay at 20.05 hours whereas the incident took place at 11.30 hours on the same day, for which no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. He also contends that it is not possible to believe the case of the petitioners that a mob comprising of one hundred to two hundred persons threw brickbats upon them and yet none of them sustained even minor injury thereby rendering his justification for opening of fire by his personal security guards highly suspect. Only six brick-bats were found in and around the place of occurrence. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the ballistic report confirms that the revolver of the petitioner No. 1 was fired recently thereby corroborating the F.I.R. that he himself had fired and it is immaterial whether his bullet had hit or not hit the victim. The ballistic report further confirms that the other deceased (Nikhil Chandra Deb) was killed by the bullets of the Constable Anil Das, one of the personal security guards of the petitioner No. 1 which, according to learned Public Prosecutor, falsifies or nullifies that he was killed the miscreants at Baburbazar. The learned Public Prosecutor contends that one of the bullets/empty case of the revolver of the petitioner No. 1 is yet to be recovered, apparently concealed by him and if he is released on bail in the meantime, it may not be possible to recover the same. These are the sum and substance of the case of the prosecution. 7. I have carefully perused the Case Diaries of Kaislashahar P. S. case Nos, 76/2004, 77/2004 and 78/2004 along with the ballistic report, which are placed before me and examination of the aforesaid papers indicates that the deceased Abdul Hannan was not shot from the revolver of the petitioner No. 1 as claimed in the F.I.R. and by the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Code but from the fire-arm of the petitioner No. 5, one of the personal security guards of the petitioner No. 1. There is thus apparent contradictions in the case of the prosecution. There is thus apparent contradictions in the case of the prosecution. Secondly, whether the firings were made by the personal security guards of the petitioner No. 1 at his instigation or whether those personal security guards shot at the crowds/mobs resulting in the death of the deceased Abdul Hannan in self-defence or for protecting the petitioner No. 1 are yet to be thoroughly investigated. However, this much is clear. The fact that the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased Abdul Hannan was found by the ballistic expert to have been shot from the fire-arm of the petitioner No. 5 prima facie probabilises the story of the defence that they were shooting at the crowed/mob in protecting the petitioner No. 1. But then, it will not be proper for this Court at this stage to give definite findings on the guilt or otherwise of the petitioners and to do so would in most likelihood cause prejudice to either of the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners have been in judicial custody for the last over 20 days. The law is well settled that bail is a rule and Jail is the exception. The principles for granting bail have been succiently culled out from a catena of decisions of the Apex Court by the Delhi High Court in Sidharth Vashisth alias Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi with which I am in respectful agreement, and the same reads thus :— " ***************** 17. The principles for granting bail have been succiently culled out from a catena of decisions of the Apex Court by the Delhi High Court in Sidharth Vashisth alias Manu Sharma v. State of Delhi with which I am in respectful agreement, and the same reads thus :— " ***************** 17. In nutshell, the following principles emerge for grant or refusal of bail under Section 437, Cr.P.C. (i) Bail should not be refused unless the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity; (ii) Bail should be refused when the Court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment; (iii) Bail should be refused if the course of justice would be thwarted by the person who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being; (iv) Bail should be refused if there is likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice; and (v) Bail should be refused if the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail show a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail." 8. Apart from submitting that there is prima facie case, the learned Public Prosecutor does not disclose as to in what manner the investigation of the case would be prejudiced if the petitioners are enlarged on bail. One of his contentions is that one of the bullets/empty case of the revolver of the petitioner No. 1 is to yet to be recovered which might have been concealed by him and to release him on bail at this stage may affect the possibility of recovery. Now, if such recovery could not be effected even after detaining him in custody for over 20 days. I fail to understand how such recovery could be made by their prolonged detention in custody. No other reason is forthcoming from the learned Public Prosecutor for rejecting the bail prayer. After considering the evidence collected by the police so far, the nature of accusations made against the petitioners and the gravity of the offences charged against them, I do not find any reasonable ground for further detention of the petitioners in custody. No other reason is forthcoming from the learned Public Prosecutor for rejecting the bail prayer. After considering the evidence collected by the police so far, the nature of accusations made against the petitioners and the gravity of the offences charged against them, I do not find any reasonable ground for further detention of the petitioners in custody. It must be remembered that pre-trial detention is merely to help the investigation and not to punish the accused. However, I am also of the considered view that imposition of some conditions upon the petitioners appear to be in order for smooth investigation of the case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I am inclined to release the petitioners on bail. In the result, the petitioners, namely (1) Shri Birajit Sinha, (2). Shri Chandra Sekhar Sinha, (3) Md. Badrujjaman, (4) Shri Anil Chandra Das, (5). Shri Pramode Ranjan Majumder and (6). Shri Ram Kirishna Sinha shall be admitted to bail on their executing a P. R. bond each of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only with one surety each of a government servant in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North Tripura, Kailakshahar, subject to the following conditions :-- (i) The petitioners shall not leave Kailashahar without the prior permission of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. North Tripura, Kailashahar; (ii) They shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required by the investigating agency of the case; (iii) They shall not directly or indirectly approach/contact or intimidate any of the prosecution witnesses. Nothing stated in the foregoing shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The bail application accordingly stands disposed of.