Vedprakash @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Accused-petitioner has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., arising out of FIR No.107/2016, registered at Police Station

Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh wherein he along with other accomplices is charged for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302Â

IPC.

Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet in the matter against accused persons for the aforesaid offences and at present trial is going on in

Sessions Case No.43/16 pending before Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Bhadra (Hanumangarh) (for short, ‘learned trial Court).

The First bail application on behalf of petitioner bearing No. 6448/17 was dismissed by a detailed order on 8th of August, 2017.

Espousing cause of the petitioner for grant of bail, it is submitted by learned Senior Counsel that after rejection of first bail application there is

substantial change in the circumstances inasmuch as 9 witnesses have been examined during trial.  It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel

that PW1 Dr. Mahaveer Kumar has shown cumulative effect of all the injuries for cause of death of deceased Vikram Singh. It is further submitted

by learned counsel that PW1 has also not shown any injury grievous in nature which would have caused death of Vikram Singh (deceased).Â

Learned Senior Counsel, while referring to the statement of PW3 submits that though he has attributed specific role to the petitioner in forcing

deceased Vikram Singh to alight from car but as regards beatings given to him, he has shown involvement of all the accused persons including the

petitioner. Learned Counsel has further contended that although other witnesses PW6 Sawai Singh and PW7 Sahnawaj have corroborated the version

of PW3 Jagat Singh but these witnesses too have not attributed specific role to the petitioner in giving beatings to deceased Vikram Singh. Â

Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that PW8 Jasram and PW9 Bhajna Ram are also cited as ocular witnesses but their testimony to the

extent of forcing deceased Vikram Singh to alight from the car is at variance with the other witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that there

was no previous enmity between petitioner and deceased Vikram Singh and in fact there was rivalry between one of the accused, Pawan (since

deceased), and Vikram Singh. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that other accused; viz., Pratap Singh, Shankerlal, Dashrath, Ugrasen, Sampat

and Mahaveer have been enlarged on bail.  Learned Senior Counsel would contend that prosecution has cited 39 witnesses and so far only 9

witnesses have been examined during trial, and therefore, it would not be appropriate to keep the petitioner in custody as he is under incarceration

since 6th of July, 2016 and completion of trial is likely to take considerable time.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed bail plea of the petitioner. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that there is no

material change in the circumstances after rejection of first bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor, submits that role of the petitioner is different from

the other accused, therefore, he is not entitled for grant of bail. Â

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar, perused the materials available on record including statements of the

witnesses recorded during trial.

Upon perusal of the materials available on record, including the statements of witnesses, in my considered opinion, after rejection of first bail

application, material change in the circumstances are prima facie discernible.  Moreover, the allegation against all the accused persons of giving

beatings to deceased Vikram Singh are omnibus and so far trial has also not not materially progressed. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to

keep the petitioner under custody, who has already remained in custody for more than 22 months.  It is also noteworthy that barring petitioner, all

other accused persons have been enlarged on bail. In view thereof, while refraining to make any comment, I feel persuaded to accept this second

bail application.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Vedprakash S/o Shri Puranram,

arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.107/2016 of Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a

personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that

Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.