IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Appl. No. 3298/2010 Jameel Khokhar Vs. State of Raj. Dated : 30.04.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. MK Kaushik, for the petitioner. Mr. NA Naqvi, AAG for the State. Mr. Pankaj Sharma for the complainant. *** This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri MK Kaushik, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Jameel Khokhar pertaining to F.I.R. No. 207/2008 of police station Kotwali Fatehpur, District Sikar, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 427, 382, 450 of IPC and Section 5/25 of Arms Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the accused Jameel Khokhar has been implicated in this case by the complainant party on account of there being an old rivalry between two groups. He took me through the statements of witnesses Vijendra Singh Khinchad, Pramod Pareek, Bharat Nehra, Shabir Dhobi, Anil Swami, Smt. Vimla Devi, Beni Prasad and Ramesh Kumar and -2- further canvassed that all these witnesses have not named the petitioner to have been involved in the commission of offence of murder. The police has implicated the innocent persons in this case and left out the real culprits and history-sheeters in this case, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail, as he has been in custody for quite a long time. 4. E-contra, the learned Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that the witnesses namely, Murlidhar, Ramesh, Manoj Dhokwal, Motilal and Krishna Murari have stated his involvement in the commission of alleged offence of murder. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that an iron pipe with which he was armed with at the time of occurrence, has been recovered pursuant to his information given under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The first bail petition has been decided in detail and for those very reasons the second bail petition also deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, I do not find any change in fact situation nor there has been any change in the circumstances of the case after rejection of the first bail petition on 4th August, 2009, hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not feel inclined -3- to grant any indulgence of bail to the petitioner and thus his third bail petition deserves to be dismissed on those very grounds as enumerated in first Bail Order dated 4.8.2009. 6. In the result, the Second bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitioner Jameel Khokhar S/o Shri Gafoor stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg