1. Through the instant application, petitioner Jagmandeep Singh, who is stated to be in custody for the last two years, is seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No. 127/2010 registered at Police Station, Bari Brahmana on 12-8-2010 initially under Section 279/304-A RPC on the basis reliable information that the driver of vehicle (Make Tata Sumo) bearing registration No. JK02AH/9654 had hit the scooter bearing registration No. JK02AL-9076 being driven by one Madan Lal (since deceased). At that stage, even the name of the accused, who was on the steering of the vehicle, is not disclosed. After the lapse of about three weeks, the prosecution agency got the statement of one Deepak Gupta recorded under Section 164-A Cr. P.C. In his statement Deepak Gupta states that on the day of occurrence, i.e., 12-08-2010; when he reached near Pahalwan (known as Pahalwan Restaurant) at Bari Brahmana, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. JK02AH/9654 overtook his motorcycle and then hit the scooter of Madan Lal from behind and that it got entangled into the vehicle as it was dragged for reasonably good distance. 2. On the basis of the aforesaid information supplied by Deepak Gupla, who happened to be an eyewitness of the occurrence, the present caser was altered to Section 302 RPC. 3. Subsequently, the prosecution agency for the purposes of bringing the present case within the mischief of Section 120-B RPC recorded the statement of certain witnesses including one Madan Chouhan of Royal Motors from where it revealed that Niranjan Singh, co-accused of the petitioner, infact was nursing grudge against Madan Lal as he had stood hurdle for him in getting the land deal finalized and for this purpose, Niranjan Singh had hatched criminal conspiracy with the petitioner, pursuant thereto, the petitioner had made available an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) for purchase of the aforesaid Tata Sumo from aforesaid Madan Chouhan. The said vehicle was allegedly purchased by the petitioner on 6.8.2010 in the name of Romesh Kumar and subsequently transferred in the name of Simranjeet Singh on 11.8.2010. (Simranjeet Singh is the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, who allegedly hit the scooter of the deceased on the date of occurrence). This is concededly the main plank of evidence against the petitioner so as to involve him with the aid of Section 120-B RPC. 4. Heard Mr. Sethi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. (Simranjeet Singh is the driver of the aforesaid vehicle, who allegedly hit the scooter of the deceased on the date of occurrence). This is concededly the main plank of evidence against the petitioner so as to involve him with the aid of Section 120-B RPC. 4. Heard Mr. Sethi, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Sumit Nayyar and Mrs. Goswami, representing the Slate. 5. Mr. Sethi submits that the application for regular bail moved by the petitioner was dismissed on 28-3-2012 by the learned Pr. Session Judge, Samba and in the said application, the learned Sessions Judge has relied heavily upon the statement of Madan Chouhan, who talks of purchasing of the aforesaid vehicle involved in this case by the petitioner. The fact of the matter now is that after the rejection of the bail of the petitioner, Madan Chouhan has stepped into the witness box on 28-4-2012 and in his statement on oath, he has stated that vehicle bearing registration No. JK02AH/9654 (make Tata Sumo) was purchased by Simranjeet Singh S/o Avtar Singh tor that he had received 98,000/-. Mr. Sethi further submits that may be he (Madan Lal) states that when Simranjeet Singh had bought the said vehicle, certain other persons had also accompanied him but he does not name anybody. 6. According to learned counsel, the statement of Madan Chouhan now recorded by the trial court on oath, demolishes the entire case of the prosecution with regard to allegedly hatching any criminal conspiracy by the petitioner with accused Niranjan Singh. The main plank of evidence, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is stumbling badly and does not connect the petitioner at all even remotely with the commission of the alleged offence. 7. Mr. Sethi then submits that may be all the accused have been charged for the offence punishable under section 201 RFC, which is not only bailable, but not even prima facie made out. The case set up by the prosecution is that when all the accused were interrogated by the police, they disclosed to the police that they had used some sim card, which was subsequently destroyed/thrown by them. Learned counsel submits that this fact by itself cannot bring the case of the prosecution within the mischief of Section 201 RFC. 8. The case set up by the prosecution is that when all the accused were interrogated by the police, they disclosed to the police that they had used some sim card, which was subsequently destroyed/thrown by them. Learned counsel submits that this fact by itself cannot bring the case of the prosecution within the mischief of Section 201 RFC. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel prays for concession of the regular bail, which is vehemently opposed by Mrs. Goswami, learned Dy. Advocate General, representing the State. 9. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances and the material change in the circumstance after the dismissal of the bail application of the petitioner by the learned Sessions Judge, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is languishing in the jail for the last more than two years, his further incarceration is unwarranted. 10. Resultantly, the petition on hand is allowed. Petitioner Jagmandeep Singh is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Judicial of this Court. 11. Before parting with the order, it is made clear that any view expressed herein shall not be construed as an expression of opinion for the purposes of deciding any other bail application of the co-accused of the petitioner.