Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 10 dated 5.1.2004 under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, PS City Gurgaon. 2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR one Pawan and his companion Anju Chaudhary were found murdered, having been killed by gun shot injuries. As per the statement made by Dharminder son of Sohan Lal brother of the deceased Pawan, his brother was indulging in criminal activities for the last so many years and was also arrested in theft and robbery cases. The said complainant further stated that deceased Pawan had no enmity with anyone in the village though due to this criminal background "he had tension with Naresh Yadav resident of Sirhol and many a times they had a fight with each other." The above named complainant i.e. brother of the deceased suspected that his brother and Anju Chaudhary were murdered in the night time by Naresh Yadav. It appears that during the course of investigation the police recoded statement of Mukesh, Vijender and one Kamal on the basis of which one Mahesh and the petitioner were arrested on 9.2.2004. 3. In support of the prayer made in this petition learned counsel for the petitioner submits that (i) there is not even an iota of evidence against the petitioner indicating his involvement in the offence inasmuch as out of three persons who had allegedly seen the petitioner and his co-accused committing the offence, two namely Mukesh and Vijender have already been examined by the prosecution and they did not support the prosecution case; (ii) the accused namely, Naresh Yadav against whom the complainant who is brother of the deceased made specific allegations, has been allowed to go scot free and has been exonerated of the charges; (iii) the petitioners co-accused who is similarly situated namely Mahesh has already been released on bail by this Court vide order dated 4.7.2005 (Annexure P-3); (iv) the petitioner is in custody since 9.2.2004; (v) since the prosecution is yet to examine 4 more witnesses, conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerably long period; (vi) the prosecution has sought more than one adjournment to produce an alleged eye witness whose whereabouts are not known and thus it is uncertain as to when he will be produced and/or examined. 4. 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made in this petition. However, he has admitted the fact that the star witness, namely, Mukesh and Vijender have not supported the prosecution case. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case lest it should prejudice either of them, but having regard to the statements of the eye witnesses and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 9.2.2004 and also keeping in view the fact that the conclusion of trial will take a considerably long period, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Gurgaon. Disposed of.