JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik , J.: - Ajmer alias Pauni, the petitioner has applied for regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 153 dated 16.10.2010 at Police Station Siwani, District Bhiwani for an offence punishable under sections 392, 397, 364, 302, 412 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Raj Kumar deals in spare parts. On 15.10.2010 he alongwith his brother Anil in a Bolero vehicle came to Siwani for supply of spare parts. At about 9.30 PM in Auto Market Siwani, near Tosham Chowk the complainant went to Om Automobiles, while his brother remained sitting in the Bolero. At that time, two unknown persons came on motorcycle and hit the Bolero vehicle with their motorcycle. They are alleged to have forcibly snatched the Bolero vehicle alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- and a mobile phone from Anil and took away the vehicle alongwith Anil. Anil was lateron found murdered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in this case on the disclosure statement of Ranbir @ Kala. According to him, Ranbir @ Kala is said to have disclosed in his disclosure statement that the petitioner had used the pistol and thereafter gave it to him. He has submitted that the pistol has actually been recovered from Ranbir @ Kala by the police. The other evidence against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of the petitioner himself, which is just recorded on the same lines. He has further submitted that the vehicle in question has been recovered from Omkar. He has further submitted that apart from the two disclosure statements, one of Ranbir @ Kala and one of the petitioner, there is no other evidence against the petitioner. He has lastly submitted that Ranbir @ Kala has already been released on bail in this case. According to him, Rajesh has been examined at the trial as PW-4 and he has also not been able to say anything to connect the petitioner with the crime. He has referred me in this regard to Annexure P-1, a typed copy of the statement of Rajesh recorded as PW-4 at the trial. 4. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this case because it is he who had used the pistol to commit the murder. He has referred me in this regard to Annexure P-1, a typed copy of the statement of Rajesh recorded as PW-4 at the trial. 4. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this case because it is he who had used the pistol to commit the murder. He has further submitted that Ranbir @ Kala was the person to whom the pistol was given by the petitioner. 5. It is a fact that besides the two disclosure statements, one of Ranbir @ Kala and the other of the petitioner himself, which are in the nature of confessional statements, there is no other evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Nothing is said to have been discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements and the admissibility of those disclosure statements at the trial would be the moot point. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances, I find the petitioner to be entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. --------------