Hon'ble S.C. Agarwal, J.:— Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the records. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the deceased was a Pradhan in Village Eyai Manikpatti, P.S. Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar and in the same village, the applicant was working as Assistant Teacher and, after retirement of the Principal, was looking after the work of Principal also. It was contended that applicant is not named in the FIR, which was lodged against unknown persons. According to the statements of witnesses Sandeep Kumar, Rampa Devi and Shiv Devi, mid-day meal account of the school was not transferred in the name of the applicant and, therefore, payment could not be received from the Government and the deceased, being the Pradhan of the Village, was arranging for mid-day meals and there was some altercation between them on this ground. On the date of incident i.e. 1.10.2012, Pradhan came to the school and asked the employees not to prepare mid-day meal. Subsequently, when the applicant came to the school and was apprised of this fact, he stated that Pradhan will come to talk to him. After some time, the deceased came to the Primary School and was talking to the applicant outside the school and in the meantime, three unknown persons came on a motorcycle and shot at the Village Pradhan, who was taken to the hospital, from where he was referred for Varanasi, but died on the way. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there was no motive for the applicant to involve himself in the murder of the deceased. He was talking to the Pradhan in his capacity as an Assistant Teacher and Acting Principal of the School. The account had, in fact, been opened in the name of the applicant and the allegation to this effect is false. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of witness Ghanshyam Chamar, who stated that while going to the hospital, the deceased told him that Shridhar Pathak, Pramod Singh, Shailesh Dubey and Imran were involved in the incident. The deceased also disclosed the names of the assailants as Ravi Singh @ Natey, Pramod and Shailesh. Reliance has also been placed on the statement of witness Ghanshyam Chamar, who stated that while going to the hospital, the deceased told him that Shridhar Pathak, Pramod Singh, Shailesh Dubey and Imran were involved in the incident. The deceased also disclosed the names of the assailants as Ravi Singh @ Natey, Pramod and Shailesh. It was also contended that the mid-day meal account and one another account were opened on 26th or 27th September, which in fact, could be verified from Union Bank, Mariyad Patti, Bhadohi. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the applicant was present at the time of incident. He did not ask the deceased to come inside his room, but was talking with the deceased outside the room in an open place and, therefore, there is a suspicion that applicant was also involved in the murder. The story that the applicant did not open the account to be operated by him does not appear to be correct. If the funds were not received and mid-day meal was being provided by Pradhan, it could hardly give the applicant any motive to involve himself in any criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased. Recently, the deceased had won the Election against Shridhar Pathak by a narrow margin. Even the deceased, in his last statement made to Ghanshyam Chamar, did not raise any suspicion against the applicant. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the case against the applicant is simply on the baisis of suspicion without any concrete material and the applicant, who has no criminal history, may eb enlarged on bail. Let applicant Mohd. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find that the case against the applicant is simply on the baisis of suspicion without any concrete material and the applicant, who has no criminal history, may eb enlarged on bail. Let applicant Mohd. Iqbal Hussain, involved in case crime no.230 of 2012 under Sections 302, 120-B I.P.C., Section 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act and Section 3/25/27 of Arms Act pertaining to Police Station Bhadohi, District Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court 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. _____________