IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.7245/2009 Mangu @ Mangi lal vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 12.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Surendra Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Surendra Sharma Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mangu @ Mangi lal pertaining to F.I.R. No. 246/2007 of Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota in the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 436 and 395 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the statements of DW-1 Islam Ali has been recorded by the learned trial court and this witness does not speak anything against the petitioner. So far as the witness Krishna Kumar and other witnesses are concerned, their statements have not been recorded because of the reason that the Advocate have been on strike in Kota for the last one month. The petitioner has been in custody for quite a long time and other co-accused persons have been released on bail, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record including the first bail order dated 18.08.2009 rendered by this Court, it is noticed that the first bail petition was dismissed on the ground that the accused has been absconding and the charge-sheet against him was filed under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. It is also pertinent to observe that the trial court had already examined eleven witnesses. The trial court again has to undergo the same exercise which he initiated for trial against rest of the other co-accused persons against whom the charge-sheet have been filed by the police. I, do not find any good ground to change my earlier view, as such, the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner also deserves to be dismissed and stands dismissed accordingly for those very reasons as enumerated in the first bail order. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 29