1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc Second Bail Application No.9731/2010 Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 9.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr NS Dhakad - for the petitioner Mr NR Saran, PP – for the State BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that statements of five witnesses have been recorded and they have not named petitioner for causing the occurrence thus petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submits that eye witnesses have yet to be examined thus petitioner may not be enlarged on bail. After considering rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, looking to the facts of this case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, bail 2 application is dismissed. Petitioner would, however, be at liberty to file a fresh bail application on recording statements of eye witnesses. The trial court is directed to record statements of eye witnesses on priority basis at the earliest. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma