1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6592/2009 Than Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 03.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Anil Upman, for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. S.S. Sunda, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Anil Upman Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 284/2008 at police station Seekri, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur, in the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 336 of IPC and later on Section 302 of IPC was added. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 petitioners has canvassed that the panchayat was held on 18.12.2008 in village Ramsinghpur Palki, police station Seekri, District Bharatpur. Both the petitioners and the complainant had an altercation on a trivial issue which resulted into the injuries of both the parties and culminated in the death of Amrit lal. The petitioners had no intention to commit murder of the deceased Amrit lal, as the scuffle took place on the spur of the moment. The co-accused persons namely Ramhet, Hukum and Satish have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate 2 Bench and the case of the petitioner Kamal is similar to the those of the co-accused persons, hence, on the ground of parity, he may also be granted indulgence of bail. So far as the case of the petitioner Than Singh is concerned, he has been falsely implicated in the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The evidence as has emerged on record, it constitute an offence at the most under Section 323 of IPC or 304 of IPC but from no stretch of imagination, the offence under Section 302 of IPC is made out, hence, the accused petitioner Than Singh may also be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the bail petition and have contended that the petitioners are the main accused of this case, who are alleged to have assaulted upon the skull of the deceased with a club. Learned counsel for the complainant took me through the bail order dated 29.04.2009 and contended that on that day, while arguing the bail petition for the petitioners, learned counsel Mr. Anil Upman argued that Than Singh and Kamal were the main accused in this case and on this ground he obtained the bail of co- accused persons namely Ramhet, Hukum and Satish. He has argued today totally contrary to the arguments advanced by him on 29.04.2009, hence, their bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, do not deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioners. 3 6. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 10