1 S.B. Cr. Bail Application No. 1427/2008 (Om Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 15.04.2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J. Mr. G.R.Punia for the petitioner. Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and public prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned, challan papers and the statements of witnesses so far recorded by the trial court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was lodged by one Dayanand Punia mainly on suspicion, though the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the FIR but only on the ground of suspicion. It is further contended that had the witness Shersingh witnessed the occurrence, there was no reason for not disclosing the occurrence to the family members of the deceased, and therefore, the witness Shersingh is not witness to the occurrence, but he is a created witness. Public prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that Shersingh is the witness to the occurrence as also there is other witness namely Bhagmal who was with Shersingh and foot mould were taken, shoe of the petitioner was recovered, weapon of the offence alleged to have been used by the petitioner has been recovered, clothes were recovered and therefore, there is sufficient incriminating evidence connecting the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the 2 case and keeping in view the statements of Shersingh and Bhagmal as also recovery effected from the petitioner, in my view, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of crime of murder. The bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merit and is therefore, dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp