JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Kumar Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant and also the learned A.G.A. 2. The applicant is involved in case crime No. 117 of 2004, for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Saroorpur District Merut. 3. It is alleged that on 23.5.2005 while complainant had come to Saroorpur after hearing the news of illness of his real brother Tej Pal, at about 7 p.m., Neetu alias Ramesh, Ratan, Ravindra and Naresh Pal came to that house and took away his nephew Rajveer on the pretext that they were going for some urgent work and will return by the next morning. When his nephew did not return till noon of 24.5.2005 then he alongwith his brother went to search out his nephew and also visited the houses of the four accused persons but there no body was available. The complainant having an apprehension of murder of his nephew lodged a report on 24.5.2005. 4. As against the genuineness of the case and the proposed evidence in support of the charge it was argued that co-accused Ratan has already been acquitted by the Court of Sessions (Meerut) vide judgment dated 29.10.2005 rendered in separated Sessions Trial Nos. 844 of 2004 and 845 of 2004, under Sections 302, 364, 201 IPC and 25 Arms Act. It was pointed out that the case of the applicant alongwith two other accused (non applicants) has been separated and now trial against them is proceeding. But in the aforesaid Sessions trial against the co-accused Ratan (non applicant) all the witnesses of fact have not supported the prosecution version and have been declared hostile as is evident from the certified copy of the judgment filed alongwith the Supplementary affidavit today. The learned counsel, therefore, argued that the applicant should be enlarged on bail because the allegations and the proposed evidence is the same against applicant also. However, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed it. 5. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. 6. However, the learned counsel for the complainant opposed it. 5. The points pertaining to nature of accusation, severity of punishment, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses, prima facie satisfaction of the Court regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were duly considered. 6. In view of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration some of the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant in respect of the points discussed herein above particularly acquittal of co-accused, without prejudice to the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for granting bail. Let the applicant be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. Bail granted. ———