In a bail application under section 439 CrPC, the court must consider the character of the evidence against the accused to determine whether bail should be granted or rejected.

Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

1. The present petition for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been presented in case FIR No. 216 dated 26th April, 1994, registered under Sections 3O2/201 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Civil Lines, Hisar.

2. The incident in question had occurred on 25th April, 1994 when the dead body of Ram Dayal who was working as a servant with Dr. Balbir Singh, brother of petitioner No. 1 (and a co-accused in this case) was found lying in the outer lawn of the residential house occupied by Dr. Balbir Singh and the petitioners at Hisar. It appears that on finding the dead body, Dr. Balbir Singh went to Adampur to inform Raghunath, the elder brother of the deceased and returned to Hisar with him and thereafter took the dead body to the Hospital. A daily Diary Report was also recorded in the Hospital at the instance of Raghunath in which it was stated that Dr. Balbir Singh had come to Adampur that morning and informed him that Ram Dayal had suddenly died during the night and that it appeared that he had taken some poisonous substance or had been bitten to death by some animal or insect. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem on the same day but the doctor opined that the cause of death was asphyxia. The petitioners as also Dr. Balbir Singh apprehending their arrest in the aforesaid FIR, moved an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Hisar, who while granting bail to the petitioners declined the same to Dr. Balbir Singh. The Sessions Judge was largely influenced by the fact that the story given to Raghunath by Dr. Balbir Singh which had found mention in the DDR was erroneous and an attempt by him to side track and mislead the investigation and that this fact itself indicated a guilty mind. Aggrieved by the denial of bail Dr. Balbir Singh filed Crl. Misc. No. 13799-M of 1994 in this court but the same was dismissed on September 19, 1994. In the meantime, the State of Haryana moved for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners vide Crl. Misc. No. 14242-M 1994 and this application was allowed on October 7, 1994 and the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge Hisar to the petitioners was also cancelled. The learned Judge while allowing the aforesaid application in favour of the State held that anticipatory bail was required to be sparingly given in a case of murder and that the accused were called upon to explain the circumstances leading to the death of their domestic servant and further that the murder was the handiwork of more than one person as Dr. Balbir Singh was a seriously handicapped person. The petitioners were arrested on 17.10.1994 and thereafter moved an application for bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Hisar, but the same has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 8th November, 1994. The learned Sessions Judge did notice the contentions of the rival parties, but while dismissing the application he did not record any specific reasons for doing so. Hence this petition.

3. Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Sr. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has urged that even after the arrest of the petitioners no evidence worth its while had come on record and that the evidence so far collected by the prosecution revealed the involvement of Dr. Balbir Singh only. He has urged on the basis of the observations of this Court in the two matters pertaining to this incident that had come earlier that it was Dr. Balbir Singh alone who had attempted to sidetrack the investigation as Ram Dayal was admittedly the servant of Dr. Balbir Singh alone, although the three accused were residing in the same premises. On these assertions, I called upon Mr. D.S. Bishnoi, learned Deputy Advocate-General, appearing for the State, to show any other evidence that might have been collected after the arrest of the petitioners. He has argued that the involvement of Gurmesh Bishnoi was proved from the f