1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc Bail Application No. 7566/2010 Vinod Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 20.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr SN Shah - for the petitioner Mr Amit Poonia - Public Prosecutor BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case was initially registered for an offence under section 302 IPC, however, charge sheet has now been filed for the offence under section 304/34 IPC. Petitioner is said to have caused injury to deceased by throwing stone, however, when Panchnama was prepared no injury was shown. Even in post mortem report swelling has been shown which cannot be cause of death. Throwing stone cannot make out a case for the offence under section 304/34 IPC. Hence, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 2 Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submits that main allegations exist against petitioner only. In the post mortem report swelling has been shown on vital part. Hence, at this stage, 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 application is dismissed. It is stated that charges have already been framed. Therefore, trial court is directed to expedite the trial and, if possible, conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. If, for any good and sufficient reasons, trial is not concluded within aforesaid period, petitioner would be at liberty to file a fresh bail application before this court. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma