Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present bail applications have been maintained by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking their release in case FIR No. 46 of 2018, dated 31.03.2018, under Sections 279, 353, 332 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Solan, District Solan, H.P.

2. As per the averments made in the petitions, the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. No fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period, so they be released on bail.

3. Police report stands filed. As per the prosecution story, on 31.03.2018 Shri Subhash Chand (complainant), Driver in HRTC Depot Parwanoo, got recorded his statement before the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C. The complainant, in his statement has stated that on 31.03.2018, at about 05:10 p.m., he was deployed in bus No. HP15A-5066, which was enroute Kalka to Dharampur. Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Conductor, was deployed in the same bus. There were 35/40 passengers inside the bus and when at about 06:05 p.m. there was traffic jam, a vehicle having registration No. PH65AR-0406 collided from the back side of the bus. Thereafter, three persons came out of the vehicle and started abusing and thrashing him. Petitioner Jaswant Singh hit him on his head with a stone and accused Daljeet Singh fired three bullets from his revolver. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, a case was registered and the investigation ensued. The spot was photographed and recoveries were effected. Police completed the sample and sealing formalities and all the accused persons were arrested on 01.04.2018 and since then they are in judicial custody. The investigation in the case stands completed and supplementary challan will be presented in the Court shortly. Lastly, it is prayed that the bail applications of the petitioners be dismissed, as the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case they are released on bail there is every likelihood that they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and gone through the record, including the police report, carefully.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the petitioners are innocent. They are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He has further argued that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping them behind the bars for an unlimited period. The petitioners are ready and willing to abide by the terms and conditions of bail, in case so granted, which shall be imposed by this Court. Therefore, the applications be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners were found involved in a serious offence and in case they are released on bail, they may tamper with the prosecution evidence and may also flee from justice. He has argued that taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence, the applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

6. In rebuttal the learned Counsel for the petitioners have argued that the petitioners cannot be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period. He has further argued that the petitioners are neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice, so they may be enlarged on bail.

7. At this stage, after carefully going through the records and the rival contentions of the parties, considering the prosecution story, the nature and the manner in which the incident alleged to have taken place and also the overall aspects of the case, including the fact that the complaint has suff