SURENDRA SINGH, J. Being ag grieved by the order of refusal of bail dated 18. 11. 2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Bijnor, applicant-Jagvendra alias Babloo being prose cuted in Case Crime No. 1296 of 2008 un der sections 147, 148, 364, 302, 201, 120-B and 404/34 I. P. C. , Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor has preferred instant bail application before this Court. Heard Sri P. N. Mishra, learned senior Counsel for the applicant and Sri Mohd. Afzal, learned Counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on the record. The background facts of the prosecu tion case in nutshell are as follows: 2. On 19. 7. 2008 at about 2 P. M. , the husband (Purshottam alias Jolly) of the first informant Smt. Mamta Tayal left his house on his motorcycle No. U. P.-20 P-9919 TVS Star and thereafter he remained untraceable. The F. I. R. was lodged on 20. 7. 2008 at about 12. 50 hours under section 364 I. P. C at police outpost Sarai of Police Station Na jibabad, District Bijnor. In F. I. R. she ex pressed her suspicion against non-applicants, namely, Dr. Manish, Ajai Ma-heshwari, Vijai Maheshwari, Vijai Prakash Agrawal, Rajiv Maheshwari, Ashok Kumar and Rakesh Pahalwan as there was some litigation between her husband and these people who were putting pressure upon per husband to compromise. Therefore, the motive behind the abduction and killing was property dispute and pending civil and criminal litigations between the par ties. The case was later on converted to sections 147, 148, 364, 302, 120-B, 201 and 404/34 I. P. C. 3. The applicant was not named in the F. I. R. , his complicity is based upon the statements of witnesses, namely, Musarrat Ali, Sukhjinder Singh and Masooq Ahmed recorded under section 161 Cr. P. C. 4. The statement of Musarrart Ali resident of Mohalla Mahal Sarai, Police Station Najibabad, District Bijnor was re corded on 30. 7. 2008. He is alleged to have seen the applicant along with other co-accused, namely, Kakesh Pahalwan, Ajeet Chauhan as well as two snake charmers in the house of Dr. Manish on 16. 7. 2008. 5. The statement of Sukhjinder Singh resident of Taharpui;, Police Station Najib abad, District Bijnor was recorded on 1. 8. 2008 under section 161 Cr. 7. 2008. He is alleged to have seen the applicant along with other co-accused, namely, Kakesh Pahalwan, Ajeet Chauhan as well as two snake charmers in the house of Dr. Manish on 16. 7. 2008. 5. The statement of Sukhjinder Singh resident of Taharpui;, Police Station Najib abad, District Bijnor was recorded on 1. 8. 2008 under section 161 Cr. P. C. He is alleged to have given an eye-witness ac count of the alleged assault on Purshottam alias Jolly (deceased ). He has stated that he was going to Najibabad by a bus, as he has to meet one persons of Mohalla Moti Na-gar, but he alighted near Agrawal Petrol Pump from the bus and proceeded on foot on Vijai Nagar Road. When he reached near the house of co- accused Dr. Manish where at about 7. 30 P. M. or 8. 00 P. M. , the shrieks coming from house of Dr. Manish attracted him and he went there and started to peep from the window and saw that two snake charmers were trying to get a person bitten by snake. However, when that did not have successful effect, co-accused Ajeet Chauhan picked up a bat and struck at the deceased on his head and he further saw that both the snake charm ers, namely, Narveer and Mohan, Dr. Manish, Ajeet Chauhan, Rakesh Pahalwan, Rajesh and the applicant were present there. He has further stated that while the snake charmers were getting the deceased bitten by the snake, the other co-accused including the applicant were catching holding and pressing the deceased on the floor. He has further stated that after the incident at about 8. 00 P. M. the deceased was carried away in Inova car and since he was afraid, he went back to his Village Ta-harpur and did not disclose to anyone re garding the facrurn of incident. 6. Likewise the statement of another alleged witness Masooq Ahmed was re corded on the same day i. e. 13. 8. 2008. , He repeated the same version as was narrated by aforesaid Sukhjinder Singh in his state ment but he did not mention the name of the applicant in his statement either re corded under section 161 Cr. P. C. or 164 Cr. P. C (on 21. 8. 2008 ). 7. 8. 2008. , He repeated the same version as was narrated by aforesaid Sukhjinder Singh in his state ment but he did not mention the name of the applicant in his statement either re corded under section 161 Cr. P. C. or 164 Cr. P. C (on 21. 8. 2008 ). 7. It conspicuously transpires from the statements aforementioned that the prosecution case rests upon the statement of sole witness Sukhjinder Singh whose statement was recorded at the belated stage i. e. 1. 8. 2008. 8. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is not named in the F. I. R. and he had no motive in disappearance or murder of the de ceased and rather the applicant had no concern with any dispute between the de ceased and co-accused Dr. Manish. He has further submitted that neither there is evi dence of deceased being last seen in the company of the applicant nor there is any evidence of recovery of any article belong ing to the deceased from his possession or on his pointing out. He has further submit ted that in order to connect the applicant with the present crime, the prosecution relies only on the testimony of Sukhjinder Singh and Masooq Ahmed but no reliance can be placed on the statement of aforesaid witnesses for the reason that the statement of Sukhjinder Singh was recorded on 1. 8. 2008 while that of Masooq Ahmed was recorded on 13. 8. 2008 at the belated stage. The conduct of Sukhjinder Singh, being sole witness, in not disclosing the name of the applicant at the earliest, seriously af fects the prosecution case and, therefore, does not inspire confidence. As far as an other proposed witness Masooq Ahmed is concerned, he has not mentioned the appli cant to be present in the house of co-accused Dr. Manish. Thus the statement of both the witnesses are not analogous rather contradictory with each other. As far as an other proposed witness Masooq Ahmed is concerned, he has not mentioned the appli cant to be present in the house of co-accused Dr. Manish. Thus the statement of both the witnesses are not analogous rather contradictory with each other. He has fur ther submitted that both the aforesaid wit nesses are purely chance witnesses and their conduct in neither reporting the mat ter to the police nor informing the com plainant itself shows that they were got up witnesses and even if the statements of these witnesses are taken into account the role anointed to the applicant is merely that of catching hold the victim Purshottam alias Jolly and not causing him any injury at the moment when two snake charmers were trying him to be bitten by snake. He has further submitted that the applicant is in jail since 2. 9. 2008 and trial has not com menced which is likely to consume some time to conclude and moreover there is no criminal history to his credit and there are scanty chances of his absconding or tam pering with the prosecution evidence, if he is released on bail. 9. On the other hand, learned Coun sel for the complainant vehemently con tended that this is a case of gruesome mur der of the victim Purshottam alias Jolly which is alleged to have taken place inside the house of the co-accused Dr. Manish and the applicant was witnessed by the afore said witnesses having full participation in the crime. He has further submitted that in case he is allowed to be released on bail, there are chances of his absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence. The points pertaining to nature of ac cusation, severity of punishment, reason able apprehension of tampering the wit nesses, prima facie, satisfaction regarding proposed evidence and genuineness of the prosecution case were dully considered. 10. Considering totality of circum stances of the case; 1 consider it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Jagvendra alias Babloo involved- in afore said crime be released on bail on his fur nishing a personal bond of Rs. 25, 000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions that: 1. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the applicant Jagvendra alias Babloo involved- in afore said crime be released on bail on his fur nishing a personal bond of Rs. 25, 000/- and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions that: 1. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating the witnesses. 2. He shall co-operate with the inves tigation and speedy trial. 3. He shall not indulge in any crimi nal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail. .