JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J. 1. Since both the bail applications arise from the same FIR, they are heard together and are being decided by this common order. 2. Applicants Dharmendra and Vipin are in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 938 of 2023, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali Manglour, District-Haridwar. They have sought their release on bail. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to the FIR, on 31.10.2023, there was a incident of marpeet between the applicant Vipin and others on the one side and Roshan on the other side. In that marpeet, when Sito Devi intervened to rescue, she was also assaulted. The injured Roshan and Sito Devi were taken to hospital. When they were returning, the applicants along with co-accused attacked them him with sword, lathi, danda and saria, due to which Surya sustained serious injuries. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants would submit that according to the PW1, the informant, it is co-accused Rikki, who hit on the head of the deceased, due to which he died. Reference has been made to the statement of PW1, Pankaj. 6. Learned State Counsel would submit that the role of assault has jointly been assigned to the applicants along with co-accused, but it is true that PW1, Pankaj, in his statement, has stated that on the head of the deceased, Surya, co-accused Rikki hit with a sword, which was fatal to his life. 7. Learned counsel for the informant adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned State Counsel. 8. 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. 9. In this case, it has been stated on behalf of the applicants that 14 persons were named, but the chargesheet has been submitted against only 9 persons. It is admitted that the fatal injury was on the head, which according to the PW1, was authored by co-accused Rikki. 10. 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. 11. The bail applications are allowed. 12. It is admitted that the fatal injury was on the head, which according to the PW1, was authored by co-accused Rikki. 10. 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. 11. The bail applications are allowed. 12. Let the applicants be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each in the like amount, by each one of them, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.