1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5957/2009 Halkey @ Ramavtar @ Pradeep vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 06.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.K. Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. S.K. Gupta Advocate on behalf of the applicant Halkey @ Ram Avtar @ Pradeep pertaining to F.I.R. No. 36/2009 of Police Station Kailadevi, District Karauli in the offence under Section 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that he has been falsely implicated and is in no way connected with the commission of offence of murder of Ravi Kant in the instant case. He has further contended that deceased Ravi Kant had illicit relations with Ayushi. It was Ayushi, her brother and parents, who threatened to kill Ravi Kant. There is not even an iota of evidence emerging on record which may connect the petitioner with the offence of murder of deceased Ravi Kant. The petitioner has been in custody for quite a long time, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition on the ground that there is last seen evidence of witness Durgesh against the petitioner. Apart this, blood stained cloths of the petitioner have also been recovered from his possession. There is also call details which 2 evince the conversation between the deceased and the petitioner prior to his death, hence, the petition may be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the present case solely rests on the circumstantial evidence. The blood stained cloths have been sent for chemical examination to FSL, report of which has yet not been received. The witness Durgesh who is found to have been running a Hotel, stated that three persons including the petitioner and deceased came to his Hotel and had dinner. This is the last seen evidence against the petitioner. At this stage, when the case is pending trial, this evidence is not required to be appreciated by this Court. Hence, I without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not deem it just and proper to grant any bail to the petitioner and the same deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner stands dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file bail petition afresh after recording the statements of the material witnesses. Learned trial court is directed first to record the statements of material witnesses including Durgesh. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Mak/- 15