JUDGMENT
M.B. Sharma, J.
1. The second bail application was only dismissed by this Court on March 2, 1989. The first bail application was dismissed as far back as on March 14, 1988. Thus, the second bail application was filed after almost a year of the dismissal of the first bail application.
2. The third bail application has been filed on the ground that the prosecution evidence has not concluded. Earlier an application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was filed on the basis of the statement recorded in the trial court to take cognizance of offences mainly against four accused persons against whom the Police earlier had not filed charge-sheet and charge-sheet was filed only against two accused persons including the petitioner. It was given out that investigation in respect of other four accused persons is going on.
3. While dismissing the second bail application under order dated March 2, 1989, it was brought to my notice that the application under Section 319, Cr.P.C. was dismissed on January 4, 1989. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the said application was got dismissed to pre-empt the decision of the second bail application which had been filed in the court on October 27, 1988 and was listed for orders on January 6, 1989. It was given out that fresh application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed and it is yet to be disposed of If that application is allowed the trial of the case is bound to further be delayed. Even otherwise as per Mr. Dhankhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the accused petitioner is in jail for last about 18 months and there is no allegation against the accused and there can be none now so far as tampering with the witnesses is concerned, because all the eye witnesses have been examined and the very fact that the complainant party is always represented in this court through a counsel will go to show that it is impossible that the witnesses will be won over and can be won over by any mode what so ever.
4. There cannot be any dispute and Mr. Rathore, counsel for the complainant who is assisting the Public Prosecutor does not dispute that the case against the two accused persons is similar to the case of those against Whom charge-sheet has not been filed. This goes to show that out of six similarly situated persons two are in jail and four have not been arrested, because the Investigating Officer, for the reasons known to him, may be for a reason that investigation was going on, did not file any charge-sheet and mentioned in the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. that the investigation was still going on against them.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused petitioner is in jail for last more than 18 months and the possibility that as a result of disposal of the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. the trial may be delayed can not be excluded. I am of the opinion that the bail application should be allowed because the gravity is one of the considerations and not the sole consideration while dealing with the bail applications.
6. Consequently. I here by allow this application and direct that the petitioner Jawahar Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 12,000/- with two sureties each in the amount of Rs. 6,000/- to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance in that or any other court in which he may be required to appear on all dates of hearings and as and when called upon to do so.