1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER 1. S.B.CRI.MISC.2 nd BAIL APPLICATION NO.2842/2009 Shrawan Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan 2. S.B.CRI.MISC.2 nd BAIL APPLICATION NO.2871/2009 Madan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order : : 26.05.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Ramesh Purohit, for the petitioner-Shrawan Ram. Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, for the petitioner-Madan Singh. Mr.Ashok Prajapat, Public Prosecutor for the State. BY THE COURT: Both these second bail applications arise out of one and same case being FIR No.102/2009, Police Station Basni, Jodhpur and therefore, they are being heard and decided together by a common order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2 earlier bail application filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed at the stage while the matter was under investigation. However, thereafter the police has concluded the investigation and submitted the challan before the competent court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the statements of the independent witnesses recorded by the police during the investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it is clear that at the time of committing suicide by the deceased from the upper story, both the petitioners were at the ground floor in the office of petitioner-Madan Singh and therefore, there is no evidence of inducing the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the statement of Bhika Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as also the statements of Bhanwar Lal and Chandra Devi, wife of the deceased and contended that in the statement of Bhika Ram, whose shop is situated in the same lane of the shop of petitioner-Madan Singh, stated that Madan Singh, Shrawan, Dinesh, Rajuram along with one more person whose name later on came to know as Mangla Ram Purohit (the deceased) came at the shop of Madan Singh. For some time, they all were sitting there and in the 3 meanwhile, the deceased was talking on a mobile phone to some other person. Thereafter, Madan Singh, Shrawan, Dinesh and deceased went in the office of Madan Singh at the upper story. However, Madan Singh, Dinesh, Shrawan came down and deceased continued to be at upper story and Madan Singh & Shrawan were sitting at the ground floor in the office of Madan Singh. Thereafter, the deceased came to ground floor and he went up and down many times talking on mobile phone. Thereafter, they heard a sound of falling one person from upper story. Later on, it was revealed that the person who fell from the upper story was Mangla Ram. On the strength of statement of this witness, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at the time of committing suicide, the deceased was alone at the upper story and petitioners were sitting on the shop of petitioner-Madan Singh at ground floor. So far as the statement of Bhanwar Lal is concerned, he is an employee of the Bank of Baroda where the deceased had bank account. He stated in his statement that deceased came along with three-four persons at Bank and asked for issuance of the cheque book but he declined to issue the cheque book as he has already been issued cheque book and out of 20 cheques, only 2 cheuqes have been utilized. Thereafter, the deceased 4 and other persons who came to the Bank went away. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner-Madan Singh owed some amount to the deceased and deceased was to pay the said amount but he failed to pay despite having been asked on several occasions. The wife of the deceased also stated in her statement that on 28.3.2009, Madan Singh and Shrawan came at her house. Her husband went with these persons to return owed money after withdrawing the same from the bank but thereafter, he did not turn up at home and committed suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that similarly situated two co-accused, namely, Rajuram and Dinesh have already been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, however, this fact has not been controverted that two co-accused Raju Ram and Dinesh have been granted bail by coordinate Bench of this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the statements of prosecution witnesses, more particularly Bhika Ram and Bhanwar Lal, without commenting on the merit of the case, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail. 5 Accordingly, this bail application filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Shrawan Ram S/o Gordhan Ram and (2) Madan Singh S/o Prabhu Ram Mali be released on bail in FIR No.102/2009, P.S. Basni, Jodhpur provided each of them executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. (H.R.PANWAR), J. NK