JUDGMENT 1. - The instant application for bail has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been charge sheeted in connection with F.I.R. No. 312/2011 registered at the Police Station, Gharsana, district Sri Ganganagar and facing trial in Session Case No. 4/2012 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh, camp Gharsana for the offences under Sections 307/34, 302, 351 and 324 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that one Jai Singh lodged a written report at the Police Station, Gharsana on 24.7.2011 alleging inter alie that his daughter Praveen Kaur had been married with Balvinder Singh about 18 to 20 years ago; Praveen Kaur called him for her house on 23.7.2011 at about 7.00 O'Clock and informed that Balvinder Singh has launched an assault upon her. On receiving this call, the complainant sent his son D.C. Singh and son in law Guruvidra Singh on a motorcycle for inquiring about the trouble. A little later, the maternal grandson of the complainant called him again and informed that fight may escalate. Thereafter the other son of the complainant, namely Balwant Singh, took a tractor and went towards the house of Praveen Kaur. The first informant and his wife Sukhdev Kaur also took a vehicle of one Harmail Singh and went towards the house of Praveen Kaur at 10.30 PM. It is alleged that at about 10.30 in the night when the first informant reached the village 4NM, they saw that D.C. Singh, Balwant Singh and Praveen Kaur were coming towards them on a tractor and on seeing the first informant, they got down from the tractor. At that time Balvinder Singh, Gurucharan Singh S/o Nakshatra Singh and Sukhpal Singh alias Paal Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh. Paal Singh was having a pistol in his hand Balwant Singh and Gurucharan Singh exhorted him to open fire, on which Paal Singh fired the gun and the gun shot hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. In the meantime, Gurucharan Singh took the pistol from Paal Singh and fired the second gun shot, which hit the calf of D.C. Singh, due of which D.C. Singh fell down. The first informant and his companions raised hue and cry, upon which the accused persons ran away. In the meantime, Gurucharan Singh took the pistol from Paal Singh and fired the second gun shot, which hit the calf of D.C. Singh, due of which D.C. Singh fell down. The first informant and his companions raised hue and cry, upon which the accused persons ran away. On the basis of this written report, an F.I.R. No. 312/2011 was registered for the offences under Sections 307/34, 341 and 324 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and the investigation commenced. D.C. Singh expired as a result of his injuries and therefore, the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code was added to the case. On the post mortem of the dead body of D.C. Singh being conducted, it was found that he was having a punctured wound on the left thigh and a bullet was found from inside the wound and the result of the gun shot resulted into tearing of the femoral vessel causing excessive blood loss. Another injury being an entry would of bullet was found on the left side of lower portion of the leg and a corresponding exit wound was also found accompanied with an communited commuted fracture of left leg bone. The cause of death of D.C. Singh was found to be the shock as a result of ante-mortem fire arm injuries. A pistol was recovered at the instance of accused Gurcharan Singh. A charge sheet has been filed against the present petitioner, Gurucharan Singh and Balvinder Singh for the aforesaid offences and the trial has commenced. Now the instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the present petitioner seeking bail in connection with aforesaid case. 3. Mr. M.D. Purohit, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that in this case the petitioner has been falsely implicated. Referring to the statement of Praveen Kaur, it is submitted that the aforesaid witness, who is the star witness of the prosecution, has made a specific allegation that only two person, viz. Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came near them when she was going towards village 5JN with her brother D.C. Singh and brother-in-law Balwant Singh. The accused Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came and accosted them when they reached some distance from their house. Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came near them when she was going towards village 5JN with her brother D.C. Singh and brother-in-law Balwant Singh. The accused Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came and accosted them when they reached some distance from their house. A specific allegation of this witness is that Gurucharan Singh fired a shot from the pistol being held by him and the gun shot so fired hit the left calf of D.C. Singh, after which D.C. Singh accelerated the tractor. A little further ahead, she saw her mother and father coming towards them on another tractor, on which D.C. Singh stopped the tractor. Balwant Singh ran away from the tractor and D.C. Singh fell down because of gun shot injury receiving by him. At that point of time, Balvinder Singh Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh reached there and after raising a cry that he should not be left alive, Gurucharan Singh made the second fire, which hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. Paal Singh made another fire with the gun, from which the pellet hit the jumper being worn by her and then caused injury to her abdomen.Reference has also been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the statement of Sukhdev Kaur, in which it has been mentioned that when D.C. Singh and Praveen Kaur met the witness on the tractor, at that time D.C. Singh was already having one gun shot injury on his left calf and he fell down on seeing the witness. Thereafter Balvinder Singh, Gurucharan Singh and Paal Singh came there on a motorcycle and shouted that the assault should be made, upon which Gurucharan Singh opened gun fire, which hit the left thigh of D.C. Singh. She has stated that thereafter Paal Singh also made a fire for killing Praveen Kaur, due to which Praveen Kaur received injury on her abdomen.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement of Balwant Singh, in which he also stated to have seen the first injury being caused to his brother D.C. Singh and that too by Gurucharan Singh.Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statements of Biarbal Ram and Hans Raj, on whose vehicle Jai Singh, the first informant and his wife reached the scene of the occurrence. They have stated that by the time they reached near the place of the occurrence, D.C. Singh had already received the injuries and told the witnesses that the injuries have been caused to him by Balvinder Singh and Gunicharan Singh and that when the witnesses reached the place of the occurrence, Gurucharan Singh's son Sukhpal Singh was not present at the scene of the occurrence.Thus, it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact, the first informant and his wife are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence and that the petitioner has been simply implicated in this case because he is the some of Gurucharan Singh, the main accused. It is prayed that as the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail in this case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Rakesh Arora, the learned counsel for the complainant, have submitted that there is a specific allegation in the statements of witnesses regarding petitioner also having fired the gun upon the deceased and thus, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and carefully perused the material on record. 6. There are two sets of evidence available on the record of this case regarding participation of the petitioner in the incident. While in the F.I.R. and the statement of Jai Singh, an allegation has been made that the first fire on the thigh of deceased D.C. Singh was made by the petitioner Sukhpal Singh alias Paal Singh, whereas the second fire was made by Gurucharan Singh with the same gun. However, the witnesses Birbal Ram and Hans Raj have stated that Jai Singh reached at the place of the occurrence after the incident had taken place. On the other hand, the injured witness Praveen Kaur has stated that Gurucharan Singh caused the first gun shot injury to D.C. Singh on his calf and then the tractor was driven away by D.C. Singh for some distance and there D.C. Singh got down from the tractor, whereupon Gurucharan Singh again reached there with the other accused and caused the second gun shot wound to D.C. Singh. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, the allegation against him is that he made the gun shot which hit the witness herself, i.e. she does not say anything about the gun shot injury having been caused by the petitioner to the deceased D.C. Singh.Sukhdev Kaur W/o Jai Singh has also stated that she saw the gun shot being made upon D.C. Singh by Gurucharan Singh and the petitioner fired the gun, which hit Praveen Kaur on her abdomen.Witnesses Birbal Ram and Hans Raj have stated that the petitioner was not even present at the scene of the occurrence and that D.C. Singh made an oral statement to them that he had been caused the gun fire injuries by Balvinder Singh and Gurucharan Singh.Resultantly, from the different versions of the story as deposed by the various witnesses, there arises a serious doubt as regards the participation of the petitioner in the incident. From the testimony of the witnesses, who have been examined under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, there is a great discrepancy as regards the presence of the present petitioner at the scene of the occurrence when the incident took place. Praveen Kaur is the person who was admittedly present with the deceased all through and she has clearly stated that both the injuries on the person of deceased D.C. Singh were caused by the co-accused and Gunucharan Singh. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the witness has stated that she was caused gun shot injury on her abdomen by the gun shot fired by the petitioner. Only one gun has been recovered by the police in this case and the same has been recovered from Gurucharan Singh. The case, which the prosecution has tried to build up is that the same gun was used by three accused persons for causing injuries to the deceased as well as the witness Praveen Kaur does not prima facie appear to be palatable. However, any expression of opinion on the merit or veracity of the case at this stage is likely to prejudice either of the parties to the trial.Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that looking to the highly discrepant versions of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the injuries caused to the deceased and the fact that the two prosecution witnesses, viz. Baldev Singh and Harlal, have specifically denied the presence of the petitioner at the scene of the occurrence, this Court feels that there appear to be justifiable reasons for directing the release of the petitioner on bail.Resultantly, the instant bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Sukhpal Singh alias Paal Singh S/o Gurucharan Singh, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 312/2011, Police Station, Gharsana, district Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever call upon to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail application allowed. *******