JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 26/23, dated 14.3.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act), at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. An FIR No. 24/23, dated 14.3.2023, was registered on the complaint of the petitioner, Satnam Singh, regarding the incident. No case of murder is made out. The petitioner had also sustained grievous injuries, and he was undergoing treatment in AIIMS, Bilaspur. The petitioner would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the petition. 2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply/status report asserting that the informant received a call from his brother Rohit on 13.3.2023 at 10.30 PM that some persons were searching for him (Rohit) and Sonu, and he (Rohit) should be taken away from the spot. The informant went to the spot and saw four persons assaulting Rohit and Sonu with an axe and an iron garari. The assailants were identified as Pradeep, Satnaam alias Sattu (the present petitioner), Amrik Singh and Nand Lal. They inflicted injuries on the person of Rohit and Sonu. The assailants went away after seeing the informant in a Pick-up bearing registration No. HP-69-0882. The informant followed them but could not apprehend them. Sukhdev alias Sonu died in the incident. Sukhdev alias Sonu had deposed in a murder case, and the persons had attacked Sonu and Rohit due to this enmity. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. It was found that FIR No. 24/23, dated 14.3.2023 was registered at the instance of Satnam Singh, stating that Sonu, Rohit and other persons had attacked Satnam, Amrik Singh and Nand Lal with a kripan. They suffered injuries in the incident. Police recovered material objects from the spot. A blood-stained iron, a blood- stained axe and an iron pipe were recovered during spot inspection. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. They suffered injuries in the incident. Police recovered material objects from the spot. A blood-stained iron, a blood- stained axe and an iron pipe were recovered during spot inspection. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. As per the report of analysis, human blood was detected on the T-Shirt and lower of Amrik Singh, T-Shirt and lower of Nand Lal, vest, lower and shirt of Satnam, axe, iron pipe, iron rod, plastic handle, seat cover and broken glass pieces were lifted from the spot. The CCTV Footage and CDR were also taken into possession. As per the investigation, Satnam Singh was called by Nand Lal. He, Pradeep Kumar and Amrik Singh went to the spot in the Pick-up. Nand Lal revealed on the spot that Rohit had run towards Mahabaleshwar. Nand Lal, Pradeep and Amrik followed him to Mahabaleshwar. They were seen searching for something in the CCTV Footage. Nand Lal was armed with an iron rod. They waited for Rohit. The challan has been filed before the Court. Hence the status report. 3. I have heard Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Amrinder Singh Rana, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner had sustained injuries, and prima facie, a case of murder has not been made out. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. 5. Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner and other persons followed Rohit armed with deadly weapons. Therefore, the version of the petitioner that he is not involved in the commission of an offence is not correct. His presence on the spot is duly established by the presence of blood on his clothes. The trial is continuing, and releasing the petitioner on bail will affect the progress of the trial at this stage. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramratan v. State of M.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3068, wherein it was observed as follows: - “12. The fundamental purpose of bail is to ensure the accused's presence during the investigation and trial. Any conditions imposed must be reasonable and directly related to this objective. This Court in Parvez Noordin Lokhandwalla v. State of Maharastra (2020) 10 SCC 77 observed that though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. The relevant observations are extracted herein below: “14. The language of Section 437(3) CrPC which uses the expression “any condition … otherwise in the interest of justice”, has been construed in several decisions of this Court. Though the competent court is empowered to exercise its discretion to impose “any condition” for the grant of bail under Sections 437(3) and 439(1)(a) CrPC, the discretion of the court has to be guided by the need to facilitate the administration of justice, secure the presence of the accused and ensure that the liberty of the accused is not misused to impede the investigation, overawe the witnesses or obstruct the course of justice. Several decisions of this Court have dwelt on the nature of the conditions which can legitimately be imposed both in the context of bail and anticipatory bail.” (Emphasis supplied) 13. In Sumit Mehta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2013) 15 SCC 570 , this Court discussed the scope of the discretion of the Court to impose “any condition” on the grant of bail and observed in the following terms: — “15. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. The words “any condition” used in the provision should not be regarded as conferring absolute power on a court of law to impose any condition that it chooses to impose. Any condition has to be interpreted as a reasonable condition acceptable in the facts permissible in the circumstance, effective in the pragmatic sense, and should not defeat the order of grant of bail. We are of the view that the present facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant such an extreme condition to be imposed.” (Emphasis supplied) 14. This Court, in Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 2 SCC 779 , laid down the factors to be taken into consideration while deciding the application for bail and observed: “ 4. It is well settled by a plethora of decisions of this Court that criminal proceedings are not for the realisation of disputed dues. It is open to a court to grant or refuse the prayer for anticipatory bail, depending on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The factors to be taken into consideration while considering an application for bail are the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; the reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character, behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. The status report shows that the petitioner and the co-accused had followed Rohit. They were seen in the CCTV footage armed with iron rods searching for Rohit. This prima facie shows that the petitioner and the co-accused were the aggressors. Hence, the plea that the petitioner was the victim, as is evident from the injuries sustained by him, is not correct. They were seen in the CCTV footage armed with iron rods searching for Rohit. This prima facie shows that the petitioner and the co-accused were the aggressors. Hence, the plea that the petitioner was the victim, as is evident from the injuries sustained by him, is not correct. One person lost his life and another person suffered serious injuries in the incident. The status report shows that the petitioner and the co-accused attacked Rohit because he had deposed against them in an earlier case. This shows that the safety of the witnesses would be endangered by releasing the petitioner on bail. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, the manner of committing the incident and the safety of the witnesses, the petitioner cannot be released on bail. 10. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 11. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case.