1. This is an application, for bail on behalf of three persons who are shown by para. 17 of the affidavit to have been committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on a charge of murder of one Hira Lal. The affidavit consists of 19 paragraphs and not one single paragraph explains one single ground on which the application for bail is desired. Orally I have ascertained from learned counsel that he desires to base his application for bail on the ground that he considers that the accused will be eventually acquitted. Apparently be desires to base his application on the ground stated in 497, Code of Criminal Procedure, that there are not any reasonable grounds for believing that the accused have been guilty of the offence. I is highly desirable that an affidavit supporting an application for bail should set forth in the beginning on what ground bail is desired, and after having set forth the ground the reasons for the ground should be explained. In the present application various paragraphs deal with reasons and arguments without any explanation of the point which counsel desires to establish.
2. Learned counsel argued that good evidence of alibi was established for one of the three accused, Sri Chand, and he relied on paras. 12 and 13 of the affidavit. Those paragraphs set out that a Sub-Inspector Babu Singh, P.W 14, stated in cross-examination that he was staying as a guest at the house of the accused, Sri Chand, and that the accused, Sri Chand, was not absent from his presence during the night and the forenoon up to the time when the Sub-Inspector received information, of the murder. No other evidence was produced before the Magistrate to support this allegation of a single witness, who is admittedly a friend of the accused. Learned counsel has not filed any copy of the commitment order or of the evidence of witnesses against the accused.
3. I am therefore asked to hold on the statement of a single witness in regard to alibi that the evidence whatever it is against the accused is not of sufficient weight. It is quite impossible for me to come to any conclusion on this point unless the evidence for the prosecution against the different accused is laid before me. No steps have been taken to do so. Learned counsel also addressed me in regard to the accused, Patigir who is stated in para. 14 to be a Goshain and to have no member in his family who can look after his case. I do not think that this is any reason whatever to admit a man to bail in a case of I murder. I consider that no ground has been made out. This application is therefore refused.
R.K
4. Application refused.