S.C. Agarwal, J. - Parcha filed by Sri N.I. Jafri on behalf of the complainant is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, Senior Advocate assisted by S/Shri Pradeep Singh and S.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the ap­plicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned Counsel for the com­plainant and perused the records. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that according to FIR, the de­ceased Preetam Singh, on 7.8.2011, was coming from Kashipur to his house in vil­lage Dhamman by a motorcycle. The first informant Balvinder Singh and his mater­nal uncle (mama) Darbara Singh were also going on the same route. At about 5:40 P.M., as Preetam Singh reached the village Khapriya Ramshabad, accused Baldev Singh (applicant), Kulveer Singh @ Soni and Paramjeet Singh stopped Preetam Singh and fired indiscriminately with pis­tols causing his death. In the meantime, first informant, his mama and one Gurv­inder Pal @ Goldy also reached there and challenged the assailants, who managed to escape. 4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the first informant and his mama are chance witnesses and were not present at the spot. The independent wit­ness Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy disclosed to the police on that very day that he found Preetam Singh in injured state when he was alive. On his asking, Preetam Singh disclosed that he had been fired at by Kul­veer @ Soni and one more person, whose name he could not disclose. This witness further disclosed that he had made a video clip of the alleged dying declaration which he would provide to the investigating offi­cer by means of a pen drive. Learned Counsel submits that the investigation was tainted and mala fide and the investigating officer deliberately did not obtain the video recording of the dying declaration from Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy, as the said dying declaration clearly exonerates the appli­cant. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that the first informant and Darbara Singh have implicated the applicant, but the investigating officer, for the reasons best known to him, again inter­rogated Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy and in the second statement, he stated that Preetam Singh had disclosed that Baldev, Kulveer and Paramjeet had shot him. The conten­tion is that at the instance of first informant and the police, Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy was persuaded to change his statement to implicate the applicant. 6. The conten­tion is that at the instance of first informant and the police, Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy was persuaded to change his statement to implicate the applicant. 6. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned I Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the ap­plicant is named in the FIR and the first informant, his mama and Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy are eye-witnesses of the incident, but they failed to explain the reason as to why the video clip of the dying declaration made by Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy was not obtained by the investigating officer wherein the deceased had disclosed the name of co-accused Kulveer Singh @ Soni only. 7. The statement of Gurvinder Pal @, Goldy goes to indicate that he found the deceased lying on the road alone and the deceased, on his asking, made a dying dec­laration. This fact itself indicates that the first informant and his mama were not pre­sent on spot, but came later on. In the very first statement, Gurvinder Pal @ Goldy in­dicated that the deceased had told him the name of Kulveer Singh @ Soni only and could not disclose the name of other ac­cused, but subsequently he was made to change his statement. The video clip re­corded through mobile phone by Gurv­inder Pal @ Goldy has deliberately been withheld by the prosecution. Considering all the facts and circum­stances of the case, the case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Kulveer Singh @ Soni and the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 8. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let applicant Baldev Singh, involved in case crime No. 948 of 2011 under section 302 I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station Tanda, District Rampur be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and fur­nishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Ju­dicial Magistrate concerned and also sub­ject to the following conditions : (a) The applicant shall attend the Court according to the conditions of the bond executed by him; and (b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac­quainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclos­ing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. Application Allowed.