JUDGMENT
I.S. Israni, J.
1. Heard. This is the second bail application.
2. It is submitted by Shri Balvada, learned Counsel that after filing of the challan, 4 eyewitnesses have been examined. From these statements, no offence is made out against the petitioner. P.W. 4, Mithat Singh is the person who filed FIR, In his statement, he has stated that he does not know who gave beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. He also states that he was forced to write the FIR, which was lodged by him. P.W. 2, Coving Singh who is mentioned as eyewitness in the FIR has also stated that he does not know how Laxman Singh died. He also states that on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.5.90 he was not at his home. P.W. 3 Chain Singh who is also mentioned as eyewitness in the FIR states that he did not see who gave beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. He further says in cross-examination that he did not sec this petition or any other co-accused person giving any beatings to deceased Laxman Singh. P.W. 4 Smt. Teji Bai has also stated that she did not sec any quarrel taking place and how deceased Laxman Singh died. She cannot say anything about this quarrel.
3. It is submitted by Shri Naresh Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor that P.W. 2 & 3 even though eyewitnesses are interested in the accused-person since they are closely related to him. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements.
4. It was also given out by Shri Balvada, that Hazari Singh was baiied-out by this Court who was armed with lathi and co- accused Narain Singh was bailed-out by trial, court who is said to have caused incised wound on the head of deceased. The allegation against this petition is that he hit the foot of the deceased with a heavy stone on account of which fructure was caused to him.
5. Without giving any opinion regarding the statements mentioned above or on merits of the case, I am inclined to grant the bail of the petitioner. It is, therefore, ordered that accused-petitioner Joravar Singh S/o Shri Ganga Singh be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5000/’- (Rupees five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Beawar, with the stipulation to appear in that Court as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of the trial against him in this case.