The main legal point established in the judgment is that at the stage of granting bail, the nature and gravity of the offence should be the primary consideration, and the credibility and reliability of prosecution witnesses can only be tested during the trial.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is an accused under Section 302/120b, IPC. His bail application was rejected by the trial Court. The same was confirmed by the High Court. Criminal Appeal No. 1630/2005 filed by him was also rejected by this Court by an order dated 5-12-2005.

( 3 ) IT appears that his subsequent application for bail filed before the trial Court was also unsuccessful. Aggrived thereby, he filed Misc. Criminal Case No. 850/ 2006 before the Hon'ble S. R. Nayak, Chief Justice of Chhattisgarh High court at Bilaspur (as His Lordship then was ). By an impugned order dated 3-5-2006, the Chief Justice of the High Court granted bail to the respondent accused on his executing a bond in a sum of Rupees One Lakh with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

( 4 ) FOR the purpose of disposal of this case, it may not be necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of this appeal. Suffice it to say that as many as 27 material prosecution witnesses have now turned hostile.

( 5 ) IT is settled law that in granting or non-granting of bail in non-bailable offence, the primary consideration is the nature and gravity of the offence. In the present case the respondent No. 3 is accused of murdering a rival political leader while campaigning in the election.

( 6 ) IT appears that learned Chief Justice did not consider the nature and the gravity of the offence while considering the bail application of the accused. On the contrary, while considering for bail, the learned Chief Justice appears to have decided the case pending trial on merit after scrutinising the evidence. To say the least, it is against all canons of law and judicial propriety.

( 7 ) IN paragraph 19 of its order, the learned Chief Justice recorded that among the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy against the accused, PW-97 and PW-100 have categorically denied that they were present in the meeting alleged to have held on 21-5-2003 at the Hotel green Park. He has also observed that PW-126 has stated that he was not at all in raipur on 21-5-2003. He says that only isolated evidence in support of the charge is that of PW-85 but it was suggested that his testimony is unreliable not only in view of the evidence of PW-73 but also for the reason that PW-85 has a motive to falsely involve the accused in the commission of the offence.

( 8 ) LEARNED Chief Justice has further noted in paragraph 20 that the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution does not appear to prove the case of the prosecution that Ram Avtar Jaggi was murdered by Chiman Singh in pursuance of a conspiracy hatched in the meeting held on 21-5-2003 at the Hotel Green Park, Raipur. He further goes on to state that the two eye-witnesses, namely, Abdul Jameel Khan and banke Bihari, who were examined to prove the above charge have turned hostile in court. He further observed that the conspiracy theory propounded by the prosecution against the accused stands shattered.

( 9 ) IN paragraph 21 of the judgment, he further observed that from the quality of the evidence so far adduced by the prosecution to prove the charge of criminal conspiracy in the murder of Ram Avtar Jaggi by Chiman Singh in pursuance of that criminal conspiracy, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie evidence against the applicant-accused to prove his involvement in the alleged crime.

( 10 ) IN paragraph 24 of his judgment, the learned Chief Justice observed that only evidence of PW-85 regarding criminal conspiracy attributed to the accused is suspicious and tenous and the same stands contradicted by the evidence of the witnesses pw-126 and PW-73. He further observed that there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW-85.

( 11 ) ON the aforesaid reasoning, the learned Chief Justice thought it fit to grant bail. Mr. A. K. Ganguly, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant- complainant, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, le