1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.II BAIL APPL NO.6709/2010 Samander & Anr. Vs. State Date of order : 9/9/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Raja Ram) Shri Shiv Charan)-representative of the petitioners. None present for the State. ****** This second application for grant of bail pending trial has been filed by accused Samander Singh and Rohitash. The first application was rejected by this Court on 28.5.2010 with liberty to the petitioners to again apply for bail after the challan is filed. When the challan was filed, petitioners again applied for bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge who by his order dated 9.7.2010 rejected the bail application. While Rajaram, father of the petitioner no.1 Samander Singh and Shivcharan, father of petitioner no.2 Rohitash are present, no one is present on behalf of State. When the matter was listed on 31.8.2010, a certificate issued by the S.H.O., Balaghat, District Karauli and another certificate issued by Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat Tigariya, Panchayat Samiti Todabhim were produced. The aforesaid certificates were to the effect that except these cases, there is no other case pending 2 against either of the accused-petitioners. Time was granted to the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the same, but correctness of such certificates has not been disputed It is contended that the petitioners were made accused in the present case only because they are close relatives of Bijendra, who is the principal accused and could not arrested yet. When the police came to their house in search of Bijendra and did not find him, they took the accused- petitioners for interrogation and thereafter they were not released. In fact, the main culprit is Bijendra, who is not arrested yet. The learned court below rejected the bail application on the premise that principal accused Bijendra has not been arrested. Even if that be so, the present accused petitioners cannot be held responsible for that. They are in jail for last more than four months. They would undertake not to indulge in any offence in future and that except this case, there is no other case pending against them. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that trial of the case will take long, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is 3 directed that petitioners (1) Samander Singh S/o Rajaram and (2) Rohitash S/o Shivcharan shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No.187/2010, P.S. Mantown, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, for offence u/s.420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC on each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/