( 1 ) THESE two applications have been filed against an order dated 4/07/1983 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9 Ahmedabad directing that opponents herein-original accused Nos. 1 and 2 charged for offences under sections 302 337 324 426 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code be released on bail. The impugned order was passed below an application for bail which was submitted on 1/07/1983 by the accused. Misc. Criminal Application No. 1513 of 1983 has been filed by the State of Gujarat while Misc. Criminal Application No. 1363 of 1983 has been filed by the original informant Smt. Prakash Kaur widow of Ajitsing Harnamsing. In both the applications it is prayed that the order passed by the trial court granting bail be cancelled.

( 2 ) IT is neither necessary nor it is advisable to go into the minute details of prosecution case at this stage. As per the F. I. R. given by the widow of the deceased victim Ajitsing Harnamsing within about four hours time after the alleged commission of the offence it becomes clear that when the deceased was taking food at his place he was dealt with by a sword blow alleged to have been given by Tarasing alias Avtarsing Sohansing-accused No. 2. It is further alleged that immediately before Tarasing gave sword blow there was exchange of words between Sohansing and the victim Ajitsing. It is also alleged that Sohansing gave a push with a bucket on the head of Jogendar and it is also alleged in the F. I. R. that Bhupendrasing had also rushed and beaten Jogendar with an iron rod. It is further alleged that Sohansing was pelting stones. After narrating the incident in details the motive for the commission of the crime has been narrated and details as to how the deceased was taken to the hospital etc. are mentioned in the F. I. R.

( 3 ) THE opponents herein-original accused were arrested on 20/06/1983 and they preferred an application dated 1/07/1983 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 9 Ahmedabad praying that they may be released on bail. The learned Magistrate passed order below the bail application granting bail to the opponents on 4/07/1983 This order of the learned Magistrate is challenged here both by the State and by the original informant Smt. Prakash Kaur widow of Ajitsing.

( 4 ) PRIMA facie it does appear that the offence alleged against the accused is under sections 302 324 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. Even in the bail application submitted by the accused it is mentioned by them that as far as accused No. 1 is concerned the offence would be under sec. 337 of the Indian Penal Code and as far as accused No. 3 is concerned that offence would be under sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Despite this position and despite the fact that a strong motive is alleged in the F. I. R. which suggests family feud between the parties it is not understood how the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that opponent accused have not participated in the commission of the alleged offence of murder and that the opponents-accused cannot be said to have abetted the said offence. To say the least the order passed by the learned Magistrate is laconic and the same has been passed without application of mind. The learned Magistrate has not even looked at the application filed by the opponents accused. As stated hereinabove if one looks at the application it is clear that both the accused have actively participated in the commission of the offence. The learned Magistrate appears tn have taken the view that only the person who may have given the fatal blow to the victim can be held liable for offence under sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other persons though may be pre ent and though might have inflicted injuries on other persons i. e. persons other than the deceased victim cannot he made liable for abetment of the offence. At this stage it is not understood as to how the learned Magistrate has become oblivious of th