JUDGMENT H.C. Mishra, J. I.A. No. 6176 of 2017. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the State as also learned senior counsel for the informant, on the interlocutory application filed by the appellant for granting bail, during the pendency of this appeal. 2. The appellant, along with other two co-accused persons, has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. From the impugned Judgment, it appears that this is a case of contract killing of the deceased due to business rivalry and one of the co-accused had hired other two accused persons for committing the murder of the deceased. In the evidence of the eyewitness to the occurrence, who is the wife of the deceased, it has come that two persons, the accused Chhatru Kumar Saw and this appellant came on a motorcycle and the accused Chhatru Kumar Saw assaulted the deceased with fire arm. There is no allegation against this appellant of assaulting the deceased, though it is stated that he was also present on the motorcycle. 4. Since earlier the prayer for bail of this appellant was rejected, learned counsel for the appellant has renewed the prayer for bail, submitting that the appellant is in custody since 22.07.2012 and there is no allegation of assault against him. 5. Learned counsel for the State, as also learned senior counsel for the informant, have opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant had also conspired the killing of the deceased and it is alleged that earlier he had taken steps for killing the deceased, but he could not succeed in his attempts. Learned counsels submitted that on the date of occurrence, he was also seen along with the main accused, who had assaulted the deceased by firearm. 6. In view of the fact that there is admittedly, no allegation against the appellant Sanjay Kumar Verma @ Sanjay Kumar Ram, to have assaulted the deceased, and also there being no allegation against him to have hired the contract killers, we are inclined to release him on bail. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. Accordingly, the appellant, named above, is directed to be released on bail, during the pendency of the appeal, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand), with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Chatra, in connection with S.T. No. 7 of 2013. 7. This interlocutory application stands allowed.