1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.3665/2010 Chauthmal Vs. State Date of order : 14/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K. Jain for the petitioner. Shri Amit Punia, P.P. for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that deceased himself when he lodged the FIR assigned the only injury to accused petitioner Chauthmal. He in fact received two injuries. The other injury has been assigned to co-accused Danmal by various witnesses in their investigation. Learned counsel argued that there are two injuries on the head of the deceased and it is not ascertainable as to which injury proved fatal. Learned counsel submitted that originally the case was registered under Section 308 IPC and that the deceased died three days after the date of incident. Learned PP opposed the bail application and submitted that the accused- petitioner Chauthmal has been specifically named in the FIR lodged by the deceased himself, who has clearly stated that severe blow of axe was inflicted on his head by 2 Chauthmal, as a result of which he became unconscious. The case of petitioner is therefore clearly distinguishable from that of co-accused Danmal. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the accused petitioner on bail at this stage. In the result, the bail application of Chauthmal S/o Chhitar Lal stands dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to again apply for grant of bail after the statements of eye witnesses and the doctor have been recorded. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/