SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. THIS is an application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicants who have been arrested in connection with crime No. 07/2007, registered at Police Station Masturi, District Bilaspur (C. G) for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I. P. C. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the deceased namely Shashi Kant Kosley was the brother of applicants No. 1 and 2 and son of applicant no. 3. The applicants were residing in village Pendri, Shashi Kant, since deceased, was in love with one Kanti Bai, who was a married lady. On account of their love affair, Kanti Bai had left the company of her husband and children and she was residing with the deceased Shashi Kant in a house at Bilaspur. On 3. 1. 2007, Shashi Kant and kanti Bai, both had gone to the house of the applicants. There was some altercation between them in the house. Kanti Bai remained there but the deceased, in the evening went in the village and came at about 8. 00 p. m. in drunken condition and thereafter he again started quarrelling with his brothers and father. The allegations are that on account of this quarrel, these applicants No. 1 to 3 assaulted the deceased with the help of Danda, iron rod etc and the deceased fell down in the house and he became unconscious. By that time, Kanti Bai ran away from the house and she hided herself at a particular place. She later on saw that these applicants had taken the dead body of the deceased from the house and thrown it on an open place in the village and the dead body was recovered on 4. 1. 2007 and the report was lodged. ( 3 ) SO far as the evidence part is concerned, Kanti Bai has been examined as an eye-witness whose statement was recorded on 18. 1. 2007. She has stated that as to how the marpit took place and how the deceased was murdered by the applicants. ( 4 ) APART from this, there are memorandums of these applicants that too after 18. 1. 2007, on which certain articles like Danda etc has been seized. 1. 2007. She has stated that as to how the marpit took place and how the deceased was murdered by the applicants. ( 4 ) APART from this, there are memorandums of these applicants that too after 18. 1. 2007, on which certain articles like Danda etc has been seized. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants argues that keen study of statement of Kanti bai would show that in between 3. 1. 2007 to 18. 1. 2007, she has met with many persons whose names have been taken by her but none of those persons have been examined by the prosecution. He also argues that if, in fact, shq was an eyewitness, she should have immediately narrated the story to her kith and kin or the persons to whom she met. He further argues that such a belated statement of this witness Kanti Bai should not be given much weightage because no reasonable explanation has been offered by her as to why she did not disclose the story at the earliest stage. He also argues that the house of the applicants is situated in the dense locality in village and in fact, the manner in which the quarrel took place, it must have been noticed by the neighbours or the villagers etc. He prays for releasing the applicants on regular bail. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the State opposes the bail application. ( 7 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of this case, particularly, considering the circumstance that only incriminating evidence against the applicants is the statement of single eye-witness namely kanti Bai, which recorded on 18. 1. 2007 i. e. , almost after 15 days of the incident and there appears to be no reasonable explanation for not disclosing the matter earlier, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which these applicants should be enlarged on regular bail. ( 8 ) THEIR application filed under Section 439 Cr. PC is allowed. It is directed that these applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. Application allowed. 25,000 with one surety each in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before the said Court on each date of hearing till disposal of the trial. Certified copy as per rules. Application allowed. --- *** --- .