1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail App. No.3716/2007 (Pratap Ram & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : August 13, 2007 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr.Ravindra Acharya, for the petitioners. Mr.Vishnu Kachhwaha, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned as well as the challan papers. I have carefully gone through the statements of the witnesses recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. including the statement of Chanana Ram. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Parcha Bayan, it has not been alleged that petitioner Partap Ram inflicted injuries on the head of deceased Geeta by stone. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that case of the petitioners is almost identical to that of co-accused Likhma Ram and Birda Ram, who have been enlarged on bail by a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.3689/2007. 2 Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the bail application. So far as petitioner Pratap Ram is concerned, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that it was petitioner Pratap Ram, who inflicted a stone blow on the head of deceased Geeta, who ultimately succumbed to the injuries. From perusal of the statement of Chanana Ram, there is a specific allegation against petitioner Pratap Ram that he inflicted the head injury to deceased Geeta and according to the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of Geeta, the cause of death is head injury. While arguing S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.3689/2007 filed by Likhmaram and Birdaram, learned counsel for the petitioners therein submitted that it was Pratap Ram, who had inflicted injury on the deceased. In this view of the matter, in my view, it is not a fit case to release the petitioner No.1 Pratap Ram on bail. The bail application filed by petitioner No.1 Pratap Ram under section 439 Cr.P.C. is, therefore, dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the case of petitioner No.2 Missa Ram is almost identical to that of co-accused Likhmaram and 3 Birdaram, who have already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 7.8.2007, I consider it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner No.2 Missa Ram on bail. Accordingly, the bail application filed by petitioner No.2 Missa Ram s/o Gokul Ram under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and he be released on bail in FIR No.54/2007, P.S. Gotan provided he furnishes a personal bond in 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 his 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. m.asif/-