1 S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail App. No. 635/2008 (Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) Date of order : 18/02/2008 HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR, J. Mr. B.S.Rathore for the petitioner. Mr. Narendra Moolchandani Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the order impugned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been identified by anyone and there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner. Learned public prosecutor submits that a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicle Act was served on owner of the vehicle who stated that the petitioner was engaged as driver. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, even if the petitioner was engaged as driver, there is no evidence that at the relevant time of occurrence, the petitioner was the driver of the vehicle or present therein. Be that as it may, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no one identified the petitioner as driver, having considered the oral arguments advanced by both the parties, I think it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this bail application filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Vinod Kumar S/o Chandagi Ram be released on bail in FIR No. 336/07 of Excise Police Station, 2 Rajgarh, district Churu, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. (H.R.PANWAR), J. RP