A reading of the above non-speaking order would only show the total non-application of mind by the Court to the gravity of the crime the apprehension of tempering with the evidence and threats to the life of the complainant and other witnesses given by the accused. The High Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical fashion without proper application of mind and without going into the merits and evidence on record against the accused persons. The High Court failed to see and appreciate that the respondents herein who are the main accused nos. 1 to 3 are the master minds behind the crime committed. The High Court has not considered the material evidence available on record against the accused which prima facie establish the criminal liability of the respondents. The High Court also failed to see that the learned Sessions Judge after taking into consideration the seriousness and the gravity of the crime convicted the accused for the crime. This apart, three other vital factors have also been not taken note of by the High Court. They are the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 who are the eye witnesses and whose testimony was amply corroborated with each other. Secondly, the identity of the accused persons during the cross-examination was also established. Thirdly, the direct evidence of the eye witnesses was corroborated by the medical evidence and the motive of the crime was also established. The trial Court has held that there is satisfactory evidence that Rajeev Singh instigated to commit the murder and at that point of time and in pursuance of that common intention of the accused they fired at the accused persons. The High Court also has not taken into account the several complaints and information reports before the trial and to the Police Authorities stating that the accused have killed his two sons out of six, the three accused were arrested and remanded to jail and other accused are absconding and evading their arrest and that one of the accused Rajeev Singh who is on bail has confirmed the group of criminals and comes to the house of the appellant and gives threatening to the eye witnesses of the said order in order to pressurize them not to pursue the criminal case against them. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent no. 1 had already undergone 12 months of sentence and respondent no. 2 in Special Leave Petition No. 3316 of 2004 had already undergone 22 months of sentence and that the respondents have a meritorious case in criminal appeal and accordingly, the High Court while admitting the appeal have released the respondents on bail subject to certain conditions. It is further submitted that subsequent to the grant of bail order, there is no instance on record that the respondents have misused their release on bail and, therefore there is no question of the respondents either trying to interfere with the course of justice or the attempt to tamper with the evidence. Submit