The judgment establishes the debatable nature of the application of Section 149 IPC and emphasizes that the gravity of the offence and severity of punishment are not sufficient grounds for rejection of bail.

M.R. Verma, J.:—Since all these petitions arise out of the same FIR No. 97 of 2002 dated 19.7.2002 under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 201 IPC registered at Police Station, Theog, therefore, these are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The case of the prosecution against the accused/petitioners (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) is that on 19.7.2002 at about 6.30 p.m. at Bag, Ramesh Heta (since deceased and hereafter referred to as the deceased) was caught hold by the accused persons and their co-accused Savitri and Bimla pelted stones at him. In the meanwhile, Bhupender, cinother co-accused named in the FIR, inflicted a Drat blow to the deceased on the back portion of his neck while proclaiming that he would be done to death there and then. After inflicting the injury with the aforesaid blow to the deceased, said Bhupender while carrying the Drat bolted away and the accused persons and co-accused Savitri and Bimla also ran towards their house. As a consequence of the Drat blow the deceased fell down. The occurrence was witnessed by Mohan Lai and in the meanwhile Sher Singh also came on the spot. When the injured was being removed to the Civil Hospital, Theog, he succumbed to the injuries on the way. Mohan Lal lodged the FIR at Police Station, Theog. During the course of investigation, the weapon of offence and blood stained clothes of Bhupender, co-accused, had been recovered and taken in possession by the police. Injuries were noticed on the person of Bhupender, co-accused, when he was got medically examined on 23.7.2002. On post mortem examination of the dead body of Ramesh, a single injury was found on the left side of his neck and the cause of his death, as per the medical opinion, is ante mortem injury over the neck causing severing of a major vein and puncturing of left lung causing hemorrhagic shock and death. It has further been found during the investigation that the relations between the families of accused Kewal Ram and that of the father of the deceased are inimical because of some land dispute and accused Kewal Ram and Jeet Ram are facing social boycott. At the material time said Bhupender was blocking a path used by villagers which runs through the land belonging to accused Kewal Ram. Moti Ram father of the deceased, objected. However, said Bhupender asserted that he would not allow anybody to enter in his land. In the meanwhile, the deceased also came there and started removing the stones fixed by Bhupender for blocking the path. It enraged Bhupender who rushed towards his house and returned to the spot accompanied by the accused persons and the said co-accused and thereafter the occurrence took place, as already stated hereinabove.

3. The accused persons are presently lodged in judicial lock up. Their co-accused, namely, Savitri and Bimla, had already been released on bail. The accused persons have claimed bail on the grounds that it was with oblique motive that all the members of the family of accused Kewal Ram had been implicated in the case without any basis and particularly no common object or common intention to murder Ramesh on the part of the accused persons can be inferred from the contents of the FIR and the allegations against them that they caught hold of deceased are totally false.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused persons and the learned Law Officer for the respondent/State and have also gone through the records.

5. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the accused that the prosecution version that the deceased was caught hold by three bail petitioners and two of their co-accused pelted stones at him is unbelievable and as per the material on record particularly the First Information Report it cannot be said that the accused had either the common intention or common object to kill the deceased. None of them is alleged to have inflicted any injury on the person of the deceased and even according to the prosecution they were not armed with any weapon w