1 S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2716/2006 Date : 17.07.2006. HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the applicants. Mr. V.R. Mehta, Public Prosecutor. I have heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 Hamer Lal's daughter was married to the brother of the deceased. He submits that cross marriages have taken place between the parties and allegations are also not specific against the applicants. However, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he does not want to press the bail application of applicant No.2 Kalu Lal at this stage. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of applicant No.1 Hamer Lal. 2 I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully perused the material available on record. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused applicant No.1 Hamer Lal on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the applicant Hamer Lal son of Kishan shall be released on bail in FIR No.81/2006 P.S. Sayara, District Udaipur, provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The bail application of applicant No.2 Kalu Lal stands dismissed as not pressed. 3 (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J.