( 1 ) BY way of this order two petitions--one of Ravinder Pal Singh which is Cri. Misc (M) 100/86 and the other of Amrik Singh which is Crl Misc. (M) 101/86 are being decided. Both of them had applied to the Court of Sessions for grant of bail. The application of Amrik Singh was rejected on November 1, 1985 by Shri S. R. Goel. Addl. Sessions Judge. Delhi. A copy of order of Shri S. R, Goel has been placed on record of the petition filed by Amrik Singh. The application of Ravinder Pal Singh was rejected on 8th January 1986 by another Addl. Sessions Judge and copy of the order of learned Addl. Sessions Judge has been placed on record of the petition of the Ravinder Pal Singh.

( 2 ) BOTH the petitioners were involved in conspiracy to place transistor bombs and thereby committing murders and actually murders took place on account of blast of transister bombs. They are also involved in the commisssion of offences punishable under the provisions of Explosive Substance Act.

( 3 ) IT may be recalled that there were bomb blasts on 10th May 1985 and the allegation of the prosecution is that the petitioners had placed transistor bombs in a train which ultimately resulted in the killing of two persons and injuries to others on 10th. May 1985 itself.

( 4 ) THE version of the prosecution, briefly is as follows. On 10th May 1985 the petitioners boarded a passenger train which left Delhi and was bound for Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners boarded that train from Delhi. When the train reached Shahdara, the petitioners placed one transistor bomb on a luggage rack and another transistor bomb in thela on a seat in the same compartment. Then they got down from the said train on the pretext that they were going for taking water. However they never returned. The train started and at about 7 20 p. m. it reached Sahibabad. a place in Uttar Pradesh One Zamir Ahmed, father-in-law of Ahmed Khan, took one of the transistors which contained bomb and tried to play it. The transistor bomb exploded with the result that Zamir Ahmed died. There were injuries to one minor girl also. The train then left and reached Aligarh where it had to be cleaned. One sweeper employed with the railways and having the. name Bachchu Singh picked up the thela containing the transister bomb and tried to play it. The same exploded and Bachchu Singh also died.

( 5 ) THE prosecution has examined under Section 161 Cr. P. C. five witnesses, namely, Sadiq, Prem Nath, Sukhbir Singh, Vinod Kumar and Lalman. They supported the prosecution version Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that their versions contradicted each other and therefore none of them can be believed. He urges that on that ground alone, the bail should be granted to the petitioners.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, I do not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The statements of those witnesses will have to be recorded in court, crossexamination will be done and it will be at the final conclusion that reliability or otherwise of those statements will have to be seen. I do not wish to give my opinion lest it may prejudice the prosecution or the accused. At this stage what I can say is that it is not possible to disbelieve those witnesses. This observation is only for deciding this application and will not prejudice the trial.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. the prosecution relied upon two instance and in two different compartments while now the prosecution is relying upon only the alleged placing of bomb in one compartment and that itself therefore smashes the case of the prosecution on which ground alone the petitioners should be granted bail. The counsel for the State explained that these petitioners were interrogated by the police and their interrogation showed that they had placed transister bombs in two different compartments which was contrary to the prosecution case and that it appeared that that interrogation