JUDGMENT : 1. Through the medium of instant bail application, applicant- Jasbir Singh seeks bail in case FIR No. 368/2015 of Police Station, Udhampur. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant had earlier also filed bail application before the trial Court (2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Jammu), primarily on the ground that there was absolutely no evidence as the witnesses on whose statements recorded under Sections 161/164-A Cr.P.C. have stated nothing against the applicant. It is submitted that learned trial Court has rejected the said application vide order dated 18.05.2017 and the rejection of bail is absolutely illegal, illogical and against the principles of jurisprudence and all laws enunciated by this Hon’ble Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. The main plea of the applicant before the trial court was that by reference to the statements of witnesses who had been recorded during investigation and to the statements which could be said to be against the applicant were of such character and quality as not to become evidence against the applicant. The substratum of prosecution story as was given in the final investigation reports was such a story in which the figurement of applicant as an accused was sheer abuse of the power of investigation and arrest and applicant had been arrayed as an accused in the case only because of such abuse of power. The learned trial court did not at consider the judgments and not even referred them in his impugned order and instead based the order on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2008 SC 1159 , which was not at all applicable to the facts of the case. The trial court has ignored even to refer to the most important part of the judgment where under facts relating to the allegation against the accused relating to proving of conspiracy was evidenced by the sequence of facts evidenced in para 8 and the other attending circumstances being they were politically influential, financially sound and capable of influencing the witnesses coupled with the fact that they were residents of a place which was situated on Bangladesh Border and Hon’ble Court had accepted the plea of prosecution of there being likely hood of fleeing from judicial process, the judgment was passed. There was absolutely no such plea by reference or facts of law applicable to the applicant’s case. There was absolutely no such plea by reference or facts of law applicable to the applicant’s case. The applicant in contradiction of the facts of the reported judgment was a permanent resident of State of Jammu and Kashmir and had a family. There was no such allegation of threat of applicant being in a position to influence any further witness in the case, nor was there any plea of applicant jumping the bail, if he was admitted to the same by the Hon’ble trial court. Applicant also was not facing any charge like Section 34 of RPC. It was also not a case in which trial had almost come to an end, as was the case in the reported judgment where only a few witnesses were examined. The Ld. Trial Court has after being conscious that there was no such evidence which was now to be recorded or could be recorded which included even circumstantial evidence that could be taken as evience against the applicant has in para 5 of the impugned order by an omnibus observation held that and to quote, “and to establish such charges some circumstantial evidence is still to be recorded”. There was nothing like that existed in the case, as to warrant any such observation and rejection of the application of the applicant. The trial court has shown absolutely no concern much less any respect for the innocence and the plea of innocence by the applicant, which plea is believed to applicant as an innocent person till the charge was proved by the prosecution. Since there was absolutely no evidence against the applicant nor was there any charge of any evidence surfacing against the applicant by reference to prosecution story and calendar witnesses, the rejection of the request of applicant for bail was wholly unjustified. 4. The learned trial Court held that it is well settled law that evidence led by the prosecution so far cannot be appreciated or even discussed minutely at this stage for consideration of plea of bail as it would definitely prejudice the parties, but suffice to say that evidence led so far does not exonerate the accused-applicant completely from the commission of alleged offences and therefore, it cannot be said that the evidence so recorded or to be recorded does not implicate the accused-applicant in the commission of offences. Learned trial Court has further observed that it is true that some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have been turned hostile but still few material witnesses remain to be examined and in the given circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to the concession of bail in such heinous offences at this stage. 5. Trial court dismissed the bail application with the observation that the charge of criminal conspiracy is framed against the petitioner and to establish such charges some circumstantial evidence is still to be recorded relying on the ratio of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment titled, Narayan Ghosh v. State of Orissa, AIR 2008 SC 1159 para 9 and 10 :- “9. Considering everything, we are of the clear opinion that it will not be possible to release the accused on bail at this stage. It is an admitted position that the Sessions trial had almost come to an end and there are only few more witnesses to be examined. The prosecution has expressed that the appellants are politically influential and financially strong and are capable of influencing the witnesses. It has also been expressed that the appellants are residents of Banagaon District which is one the Bangladesh border and therefore, there is every likelihood of their fleeing from the judicial process. 10. It is an admitted position that the appellants Sankr Adeya an Narayan Ghosh are the residents of Banagaon District which is a borxer District. Therefore, it cannot be said that the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the prosecution is toally unfounded. Learned counsel, however, insisted that we shold consider the material and more particularly the evidence regarding the conspiracy. We do not think that it would be poper for us to discuss the evidnec threadbare as any expression o ours would undoubtedly affect the trial. It was admitted during the debate that some witnesses who were the witnesses for conspiracy were examined and had to be declared hostile. If that is so, that is all the more reasons when the trial is at a precarious stage.” 6. It was admitted during the debate that some witnesses who were the witnesses for conspiracy were examined and had to be declared hostile. If that is so, that is all the more reasons when the trial is at a precarious stage.” 6. Objections stand filed on behalf of respondent-State, whereby present bail application filed by the applicant is opposed stating that the applicant has been rightly arrested in the case and is presently facing trial in FIR No.368/2015 registered with Police Station Udhampur under Sections 302/435/147/148/149/336/337/120-B RPC and 3(5) Explosive Substance Act and there is incriminating evidence against the applicant to connect him with the crime. It is stated that those who are unruly and wayward having no respect of law of the land and right of the other fellow human beings, cannot seek indulgence of the Court for enforcement of their own rights, as such instant application does not merit consideration and needs outright rejection. It is further stated that the liberty of an individual is precious and is to be zealously guarded by the Court but such a protection cannot be absolute in every situation. The interest of the society and liberty of the individual has to be balanced. The case on hand is a fit one where collective interest of the community outweighs the right of the personal liberty of the applicant and granting of bail impede not only the administration of justice but also is going to injure the public interest rather than to serve it, as such, the instant application deserves to be rejected. It is further stated that the trial is in progress. There are 45 number of prosecution witnesses and till 15.05.2017 the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, evidence led by the prosecution at this stage cannot be appreciated as some of the material witnesses are yet to be examined in the case and they may improve their statement in support of the prosecution case. With the aforementioned submissions, learned State counsel has prayed for dismissal of the bail application. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as State Counsel. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated all grounds taken in petition. He has cited 2012 (13) SCC 614 case titled Satish Mehra v State (NCT of Delhi ) & anr.; and 2005 (2) SCC 13 case titled Jayendra Sarswathi Swamigal v State of T.N. 9. 7. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as State Counsel. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner has reiterated all grounds taken in petition. He has cited 2012 (13) SCC 614 case titled Satish Mehra v State (NCT of Delhi ) & anr.; and 2005 (2) SCC 13 case titled Jayendra Sarswathi Swamigal v State of T.N. 9. I have gone through the grounds taken in the application and objections filed by the State. Considered the law on the subject. 10. The law with regard to bail during trial is well settled. The nature of accusation, the punishment for offence charge sheeted and the punishment in case of conviction are some of relevant consideration. 11. From the perusal of documents annexed and arguments, it is evident that out of 45 witnesses only 15 have been examined. Trial is at mid stage. The accusation is very severe, accused has been booked u/s 302/337/435/336/147/148/149/ and 3(5) of explosive substance Act along with others accused. It is a double murder case, where a group of accused persons including petitioner, set at fire truck no.1142/JKO3D with some explosive material on 9.10.2015 near store of PHE Gate Udhampur and two persons in truck were burnt and died. As per prosecution story, petitioner had formed the group of other accused persons. The punishment for offence u/s 302 is death or life imprisonment. 12. Learned counsel for petitioner while arguing the matter has read over statements of witnesses recorded during course of trial and brought to the knowledge of Court certain contradiction, embellishment and improvement. Now law is clear that detail appreciation of evidence cannot be done at the time of considering the bail in heinous offence. It is not a case that there is nothing incriminating spoken by witnesses examined so far. The certain contradiction, embellishment and improvement which have been brought to the knowledge of court, may be good grounds for acquittal, but not for granting bail. Further in case at this stage any finding is given on contradiction, embellishment and improvement of witnesses made during trial that may prejudice Court below in passing final judgment. Counsel for petitioner has also read over statements of rest of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which prosecution proposes to be produced during trial. He has argued that there is nothing against the accused. Counsel for petitioner has also read over statements of rest of witnesses recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. which prosecution proposes to be produced during trial. He has argued that there is nothing against the accused. Once accused is charge sheeted under offence, which carries capital punishment, then these statements cannot form basis for granting bail. 13. As already held trial is at mid stage , because maximum witnesses are yet to be examined. I have gone through the law cited by counsel for petitioner. First law is concerning conducting of trial and second law although is concerning bail, but facts are totally different. Firstly facts are to be seen then law is to applied. 14. Hence, I do not find any ground to allow this application at this stage. It is dismissed accordingly.