(1.) Rule. Mr. J.U. Mehta, learned P.P. appears and waves service of Rule.
(2.) The petitioners herein were arrested in the month of June, 1985 and have been in Jail since then. Mr. B.R. Shah learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have been under-trial prisoners for about 15 months and that in view of the fact that the prosecution proposes to examine as many as 65 witnesses, the hearing of the case may last for quite some time and therefore, the petitioners should be released on bail. Mr. Shah has also submitted that there is no prima facie case against the petitioners for having committed heinous crimes. According to him the statements are stereo-type and they should not be relied upon for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that there is a strong primafacie case against the petitioners. He, therefore, prays that the petitioners be released on bail. Mr. J.U. Mehta. learned P.P. has submitted that the petitioners are charged with very serious offences. But going through the record, he states that no overt-act is ascribed against petitioners Nos. 13, 14 and 23. Therefore, according to him, the cases of these 3 petitioners stand on a different footing. As regards some other petitioners viz, petitioners Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29, the only evidence against them, at present, is that they were indulging in pelting stones. He, therefore, submits that 8S regards these petitioners, he would have it to the discretion of this Court to consider their applications for being released on bail. However, Mr. Mehta, has urged that as far as petitioners Nos. 15, 17, 26 and 27 are concerned, there is sufficient material on record at this stage to show that they had indulged in the most heinous crimes and that their applications for bail should be rejected.
(3.) In view of the fact that there is no overt-act alleged against petitioners Nos. 13, 14 and 23, they deserve to be released on ball forthwith. As regards the petitioners against whom the only material at present is that they were a part of a mob indulging in stone throwing, their cases also deserve to be considered for releasing them on bail. As regards the petitioners Nos. 15, 17, 26 and 27 their applications for bail must be rejected.