JUDGMENT : Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking regular bail. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested vide FIR No. 26 of 2023, dated 14.3.2023, registered for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 325 & 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC&ST Act), at Police Station Kot Kehloor, District Bilaspur, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner was arrested based on the informant’s statement. No recoveries were made from the petitioner. According to the prosecution, Sukh Dev, also known as Sonu, was travelling from the village of Behal, carrying an Axe, with Krishan Lal on a motorcycle. Rohit joined them near the Mahabali Tunnel. They crossed a river and attacked four unidentified persons. The attack was initiated by the deceased and Rohit with an Axe and a stick. All the parties were injured in the incident. Sukh Dev @ Sonu succumbed to his injuries, and F.I.R. No.24 of 2023, dated 14.03.2023, was lodged by the petitioner and the other accused, against Rohit and the deceased. Twelve criminal cases were pending against deceased Sukh Dev @ Sonu. No specific role was attributed to the petitioner, and the informant only stated that the accused person wanted to kill the deceased (Sukh Dev @ Sonu). The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He has been in custody since 14.03.2023. The prosecution has cited seventy witnesses, out of whom the statements of only six witnesses have been recorded. The petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition. 3. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the informant made a complaint to the police that Rohit was his younger brother, who was working at Max Company as a helper. Rohit and Sukh Dev @ Sonu reported to work on 13.03.2023 at about 7:00 p.m. The informant received a call from his brother Rohit on 13.3.2023 at 10.30 PM that some persons were searching for him (Rohit) and Sonu, and he (Rohit) should be taken away from the spot. The informant went to the spot and saw four persons assaulting Rohit and Sonu with an axe and an iron garari. The informant went to the spot and saw four persons assaulting Rohit and Sonu with an axe and an iron garari. The assailants were identified as Pradeep, Satnaam alias Sattu, Amrik Singh (the petitioner) and Nand Lal. They inflicted injuries on Rohit and Sonu. The assailants went away after seeing the informant in a Pick-up bearing registration No. HP-69-0822. The informant followed them but could not apprehend them. Sukh Dev alias Sonu died in the incident. Sukh Dev alias Sonu had deposed in a murder case, and the persons had attacked Sonu and Rohit due to this enmity. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. It was found that FIR No. 24/23 was registered at the instance of Satnam Singh, stating that Sonu, Rohit and other persons had attacked Satnam, Amrik Singh and Nand Lal with a kripan. They suffered injuries in the incident. Police recovered material objects from the spot. A blood-stained iron, a blood-stained axe and an iron pipe were recovered during spot inspection. The postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted. As per the report of analysis, human blood was detected on the T-Shirt and lower of Amrik Singh (the petitioner), T-Shirt and lower of Nand Lal, vest, lower and shirt of Satnam, axe, iron pipe, iron rod, plastic handle, seat cover and broken glass pieces were lifted from the spot. The CCTV Footage and CDR were also taken into possession. As per the investigation, Sukh Dev Singh was called by Nand Lal. He, Pradeep Kumar and Amrik Singh (the petitioner) went to the spot in the Pick-up. Nand Lal revealed on the spot that Rohit had run towards Mahabaleshwar. Nand Lal, Pradeep and Amrik followed him to Mahabaleshwar. They were seen searching for something in the CCTV Footage. Nand Lal was armed with an iron rod. They waited for Rohit. The challan has been filed before the Court. A supplementary charge sheet was filed before the Court on 25.07.2023 and 11.11.2024. The prosecution has cited 89 witnesses, out of whom only 50 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Sessions Judge w.e.f. 15.10.2025 till 18.10.2025. F.I.R. No.11 of 2022, dated 06.04.2022 and F.I.R. No. 158 of 2017, dated 28.07.2017, are pending against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. The prosecution has cited 89 witnesses, out of whom only 50 witnesses are yet to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Sessions Judge w.e.f. 15.10.2025 till 18.10.2025. F.I.R. No.11 of 2022, dated 06.04.2022 and F.I.R. No. 158 of 2017, dated 28.07.2017, are pending against the petitioner. Hence, the status report. 4. I have heard Sative Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 5. Mr Sative Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated. There is no evidence against the petitioner, except the informant’s statement. No specific role was ascribed to the petitioner. The prosecution has failed to complete the evidence after a lapse of two years from the petitioner’s arrest, and this violates the petitioner’s right to a speedy trial. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in support of his submission: - - Gurdial Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2006, decided on 24.01.2011; - Rampal singh vs. State of UP in Criminal Appeal No. 2114 of 2009, decided on 24.07.2012; - Selvam vs The state of Tamil Nadu rep. by Inspector of Polic a/w connected matter in Criminal Appeal No.1857of 2009, decided on 16.10.2012. - Tularam vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 663 of 2018, decided on 02.05.2018. 6. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State, submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous offence. The prosecution has examined thirty-nine witnesses so far, and fifty witnesses are to be examined. The matter is listed before the learned Trial Court w.e.f. 15.10.2025 till 18.10.2025 for the prosecution evidence, which shows the Court’s concern to expeditiously dispose of the matter. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 7. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. 8. The parameters for granting bail were considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781, wherein it was observed at page 380: - (i) Broad principles for the grant of bail 56. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115, Krishna Iyer, J., while elaborating on the content of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of personal liberty of a person under trial, has laid down the key factors that should be considered while granting bail, which are extracted as under: (SCC p. 244, paras 7-9) “7. It is thus obvious that the nature of the charge is the vital factor, and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted or conviction is confirmed, also bears upon the issue. 8. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. [Patrick Devlin, “The Criminal Prosecution in England” (Oxford University Press, London 1960) p. 75 — Modern Law Review, Vol. 81, Jan. 1968, p. 54.] 9. Thus, the legal principles and practice validate the Court considering the likelihood of the applicant interfering with witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is not only traditional but rational, in this context, to enquire into the antecedents of a man who is applying for bail to find whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. In regard to habituals, it is part of criminological history that a thoughtless bail order has enabled the bailee to exploit the opportunity to inflict further crimes on the members of society. Bail discretion, on the basis of evidence about the criminal record of a defendant, is therefore not an exercise in irrelevance.” (emphasis supplied) 57. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674, this Court highlighted various aspects that the courts should keep in mind while dealing with an application seeking bail. The same may be extracted as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8) “8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well-settled principles, having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour, means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. It has also to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the legislature has used the words “reasonable grounds for believing” instead of “the evidence” which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself) as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.” (emphasis supplied) 58. This Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688, speaking through Banerjee, J., emphasised that a court exercising discretion in matters of bail has to undertake the same judiciously. In highlighting that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, bereft of cogent reasoning, this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 602, para 3) “3. Grant of bail, though being a discretionary order, but, however, calls for the exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. An order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts do always vary from case to case. While placement of the accused in the society, though it may be considered by itself, cannot be a guiding factor in the matter of grant of bail, and the same should always be coupled with other circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail — the more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter.” (emphasis supplied) 59. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977, this Court held that although it is established that a court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of evidence and an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, yet the court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail. 60. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765, this Court observed that where a High Court has granted bail mechanically, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it illegal. This Court held as under with regard to the circumstances under which an order granting bail may be set aside. In doing so, the factors which ought to have guided the Court's decision to grant bail have also been detailed as under: (SCC p. 499, para 9) “9. … It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.” (emphasis supplied) xxxxxxx 62. One of the judgments of this Court on the aspect of application of mind and requirement of judicious exercise of discretion in arriving at an order granting bail to the accused is Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170, wherein a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while setting aside an unreasoned and casual order (Pappu Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2856 and Pappu Singh v. State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine Pat 2857) of the High Court granting bail to the accused, observed as follows: (Brijmani Devi v. Pappu Kumar, (2022) 4 SCC 497 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 170]), SCC p. 511, para35) “35. While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing in the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. While considering an application for the grant of bail, a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. Due consideration must be given to facts suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, if any, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offence(s) alleged against an accused.” (emphasis supplied) 9. The present petition has to be decided as per the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 10. The status report shows that the informant received a call from his brother that some persons were looking for him and Sonu. He saw Pardeep, Satnam, Amrik Singh (present petitioner) and Nand Lal attacking Rohit and Sonu with an Axe and an iron garati. They were also seen in the CCTV footage, armed with iron rods, searching for Rohit. This prima facie shows that the petitioner and the co-accused were the aggressors. The F.I.R. No. 24 of 2023, dated 14.03.2023, lodged by the Satnam Singh, shows that he Singh had sustained injuries on his arm. Petitioner, Amrik Singh, sustained injury on his left arm, and Nand Lal sustained injuries on his neck and left leg. Injuries sustained by the petitioner show his presence on the spot. The CCTV footage, prima facie, falsifies the plea taken by the petitioner that he was a victim. One person lost his life and another person sustained serious injuries in the incident. 11. The status report also shows that the petitioner and the co-accused had attacked Rohit because he had deposed against them in an earlier case, which shows that the safety of witnesses cannot be ensured by releasing the petitioner on bail. Hence, there is a force in the submission of Mr Lokender Kutlheria, learned Additional Advocate General for therespondent/State, that the nature of the offence and the previous conduct of the petitioner would disentitle him from the concession of bail. 12. The status report also shows that F.I.R. No. 11 of 2022, dated 06.04.2022 and F.I.R. No. 158 of 2017, dated 28.07.2017, were registered against the petitioner, which means that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. 12. The status report also shows that F.I.R. No. 11 of 2022, dated 06.04.2022 and F.I.R. No. 158 of 2017, dated 28.07.2017, were registered against the petitioner, which means that the petitioner has criminal antecedents. This Court exhaustively dealt with the relevance of criminal antecedents in Aminodin vs State of H.P. 2024: HHC: 6091 and held, after referring to various judgments, that a Judge must consider the criminal antecedents of the accused, the nature of offences and his general conduct while considering the bail petition. The bail should not be generally granted to an accused having criminal antecedents when there is a likelihood of the commission of the crime. 13. It was held in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, that where the petitioner can become a threat to society because of her criminal antecedents, she should not be released on bail. It was observed: “27…..An exception will also be in a case where, considering the antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility of the accused becoming a real threat to society if enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs is always discretionary.” 14. Similarly, it was held in Union of India v. Barakathullah, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019, that where the persons were involved in the commission of similar offences, they should not be released on bail. It was observed: - “20. … So far as the respondents in the instant appeals are concerned, they are in custody for hardly one and a half years, apart from the fact that all the respondents are shown to have been involved in previous cases. There are about 8 to 9 previous cases shown in the chargesheet against the respondents, except accused Nos. 1, 4 and 6, who are shown to have been involved in two cases. Considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and considering their criminal antecedents, in our opinion, the High Court should not have taken a lenient view, more particularly when there was sufficient material to show their prima facie involvement in the alleged offences under the UAPA. 15. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. 15. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinki v. State of U.P., (2025) 7 SCC 314 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 781 that liberty of a person has to be balanced with peace and harmony in society. Liberty cannot be elevated to such a high pedestal as would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. It was observed at page 384: “65. We are absolutely conscious that the liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for the deprivation of the liberty of a person has an immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of emptiness. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law, an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. Individual liberty is restricted by larger social interests, and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society, an individual is expected to live with dignity, having respect for the law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well-accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated, and such regulations, which are the source of law, subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for the protection of human rights and the security of the collective. This is because, fundamentally, laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interests. That is why Edmund Burke, while discussing about liberty, opined, “it is regulated freedom”. 66. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. 66. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude, but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society, the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing, J. Oerter stated: “Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.” 67. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one, and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti- collective act. (See: Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 1172.) 16. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held entitled to bail because of his criminal antecedents. 17. In Ram Pal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court distinguished between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder. In Selvam (supra), the injuries were caused with a blunt weapon, and the deceased had died after nine days. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the offence would be covered under Section 304 Part-1 of the IPC. In Gurdial Singh & Ors (supra), an altercation suddenly occurred, and injuries were inflicted with implements of common use carried by the villagers, and the case was found to be covered under Section 304 Part 1 of the IPC. In Tula Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that piercing the left side of the chest with a spear would result in bodily injury, which is likely to cause death. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. 18. In Tula Ram (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that piercing the left side of the chest with a spear would result in bodily injury, which is likely to cause death. Hence, the accused was convicted of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC. 18. In the present case, the learned Trial Court has framed the charges against the petitioner/accused for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, which order has not been challenged by anyone. Therefore, it is difficult to say that an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is not made out. Further, the status report shows that Pardeep, Satnam, Amrik Singh (present petitioner) and Nand Lal inflicted injuries on Rohit and Sonu @ Sukh Dev with an Axe and an iron garati. The use of a deadly weapon like ‘Axe’ to cause injury to the vital part can only lead to an inference that the accused had attacked Sonu @ Satnam and Rohit with an intent to cause death; however, it will be open to the accused to prove before the learned Trial Court that he did not intend to cause death to Sonu @ Satnam. 19. It was submitted that there are various contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, and the petitioner is entitled to bail due to these contradictions. This submission is not acceptable. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in X Vs. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/1267/2024 that ordinarily, in serious offences Trial Court or the High Court should not entertain the bail application of the accused after the commencement of the trial and grant bail because of some discrepancy in the testimony. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath to entertain the bail application of the Accused. 15. It was observed: - “14. Ordinarily, in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court, be it the Trial Court or the High Court, should be loath to entertain the bail application of the Accused. 15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e.,(i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim. 16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the trial commences, it should be allowed to reach its conclusion, which may either result in the conviction of the Accused or the acquittal of the Accused. The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in favour of the Accused and orders the release of the Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the victim. It is only if the trial gets unduly delayed and that, too, for no fault on the part of the Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his releaseon bail on the ground that the right of the Accused to have a speedy trial has been infringed.” 20. Similarly, it was held by this Court in Suraj Singh v. State of H.P., 2022 SCC OnLine HP 268 that the Court exercises bail jurisdiction cannot appreciate the contradictions in the evidence. It was observed: 10. Petitioner has placed reliance on the statements of witnesses already recorded by the learned Special Judge, in support of his argument to the effect that, from perusal of these statements, reasonable grounds can be entertained for concluding prima facie innocence of the petitioner. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being recorded during the trial. The arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be rejected for the reason that this Court, while dealing with the bail application, will not appreciate the evidence being recorded during the trial. Undisputedly, only some of the witnesses out of the entire list of witnesses relied upon by the prosecution have been examined. In these circumstances, it is not prudent to form any opinion as to the innocence or guilt of the petitioner on the basis of such partial evidence. 21. Therefore, it is impermissible to grant bail because of the contradictions in the statements of witnesses. 22. No other point was urged. 23. In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed. 24. The observation made herein before shall remain confined to the disposal of the instant petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.