JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Since all these bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Kanchan, Vicky and Balkishan are in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 62 of 2023, under Sections 147, 302, 323, 504 and 34 IPC, Police Station- ITI, District- Udham Singh Nagar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 08.03.2023, the deceased Naresh and the injured Kamal were being assaulted by some persons. They were rescued by the informant. Subsequently, injured Kamal revealed that they all were dancing on a DJ, when at 3:30, suddenly, the applicants, along with co-accused, did marpeet with Kamal. When the deceased Naresh came to rescue him, he was assaulted by the applicants and co-accused with Lathi, Danda and Hockey stick, due to which the deceased Naresh sustained grievous injuries and he died. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant Kanchan would submit that it is not a case of murder, a such. She would submit that the origin reflects that everything happened in a spur of moment; it was a day of Holi festival, where everyone was dancing on a DJ. On a small dispute, it had happened. She would also submit that the injuries are not commensurate with the FIR. Five persons have been named and there are around three injuries on the head. Therefore, it is a case fit for bail. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant Balkishan would submit that the FIR is afterthought; the applicants, the deceased and others were dancing on a DJ; it was Holi festival; there is no motive for killing the deceased. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant Vicky would submit that there is no enmity; there is no recovery from the applicants. Hence, it is a case fit for bail. 8. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that the applicants and co-accused had hit the deceased, due to which he died; there are injured witnesses, who had also sustained injuries; it is a broad day light murder. 9. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a day light murder; the applicants are named in the FIR. 10. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. 9. Learned State Counsel would submit that it is a day light murder; the applicants are named in the FIR. 10. It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. Arguments are being appreciated with the caveat that any observation made in this order shall have no bearing at any subsequent stage of the trial, or in any other proceeding. 11. A few things are admitted:- it was a day of Holi festival; according to the FIR, the applicant, deceased, witnesses were all dancing on a DJ when some dispute took place. As a witness, injured Kamal has stated that the dispute arose when the applicant Balkishan was requested to lower down the volume of the DJ. The dispute was with Mahendra initially, when the deceased intervened, he was also hit. The injured Madan and Kamal’s medical reports are on record. They had simple injuries. 12. It appears that the incident is not a result of any design. Everyone was dancing on a festival day when this happened. The prosecution has not assigned any specific role as to who hit on the head of the deceased. There are three injuries in the head; five persons have been named. Allegedly, the recovery is made from co-accused Mahesh. 13. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail. 14. The bail applications are allowed. 15. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.