1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 8136/2009 Ravindra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 21.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. C.R. Punia, for the petitioner. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. C.R. Punia Advocate on behalf of the applicant Ravindra Singh pertaining to F.I.R. No. 122/2009 at police station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur, in the offence under Section 384, 448, 506 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the co-accused Manjit Shashtri has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Albeit, the bail petition of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 03.09.2009 but the Investigating Officer could not link the petitioner with the offences of the instant case by any kind of oral or documentary evidence. The petitioner has been in custody since 11.08.2009. The case is pending trial, which is likely to take time, hence, on the ground of parity, he may also be granted 2 indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail petition. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the relevant material available on record, it is noticed that on 10.06.2009 the complainant lodged the FIR with the police station and narrated that one person came to her house to obtain her signatures who identified himself to be Vikram Singh, but how the police came to know that he was not Vikram Singh rather he was the present petitioner Ravindra Singh. Learned Public Prosecutor was asked again and again to explain as to how they link the petitioner with the offences of the instant case but he took me only through the statements of Sanjay Sadana and Mukesh Sadana who happens to be brother and were running a shop nearby detective office of Manjit Shashtri. Petitioner was never put to test identification parade by the police nor he was made to identified by the complainant. There does not seem to be any evidence on record which could connect the petitioner with the offences of the instant case. Hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case do feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner on the ground of parity as the co-accused Manjit Shashtri has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. 6. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Ravindra Singh S/o. Dulichand in F.I.R. No. 122/2009 at police station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two local surety bonds each in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-, to the 3 satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 83